An idea about Palestine/Israel

[FourthBase]

It's completely screwy

Okay, and I can obviously see why it might be since it's my idea, but...why?

You don't deserve anything more than the answer I gave you. What you are proposing is ethnic cleansing. If you were talking about any group of people other than the Palestinians, you'd have been banned from most political forums already.

Um, no. Everyone else gets what I'm trying to say, so try again.

[kenoma]

I'm hoping for input on this idea as a possible solution, let me know if it's completely screwy or not: Take vast amounts of the money being spent on military offense/defense, and buy out as many as possible of those Palestinians who want to destroy Israelis, giving them enough strictly-purposed resources and seed money to emigrate to a new "Palestine" located far away in a sparsely-populated land, the infrastructure for which would also be built using capital transferred from war funds.

That's ethnic cleansing. You may not like the term, but that's what you're proposing.

And incidentally, the number of Palestinians "who want to destroy Israelis" is miniscule, despite what the racial-profiling US media or the two wings of the US war party would have you believe. .

[FourthBase]

http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/hs_short_eng.htm

It's very much a proposal to allow Palestinians to be assimilated into existing nations. The ultra short version is that any family that agrees gets resettled somewhere, and given a fairly substantial allocation of money. The Palestinians obviously benefit, but the host communities get an influx of newly wealthy immigrants buying land, starting businesses, etc, so everyone comes out ahead. It's resettlement and economic aid all in one.

Yuck, I got my hopes up with the assessment, but the extreme anti-Palestinian slant in its analysis and conclusion undercuts any practical benefits of their plan. Not that each side wouldn't be allowed/encouraged to perceive the other as negatively as they wish, why bother denying/fighting perceptions, as long as they don't inform the solution. Each side would have to just accept it's considered monstrous by the other side, let the other side think whatever it wants.

And the specifics of their plan are predictably ungenerous to Palestinians, to say the least. Not to be racist, I'm not...but the specifics of their proposal...it reeks of what the ignorant would define as stereotypical "Jewish" dealmaking. My idea probably requires not just an objectively fair deal, but a deal that from the beginning almost rewards Palestinians with an excessively generous payment of resources/infrastructure, a package that Palestinians might literally sue for as reparations perhaps. The last fucking thing my idea would involve is trying to shortchange Palestinians in a deal.

My idea also involves the exact opposite of their most ludicrous conclusion, that "the establishment of a Palestinian State must removed from the international agenda". Establishing a Palestinian State somewhere is an absolute condition of any solution that would actually work.

Still, there are remnants of things I like in their plan. Like, I agree with this, if I fix it a little: "Quite the opposite, the Palestinians arriving in their new Palestinian State will not be impoverished refugees but indisputably affluent émigrés". Also, I'm intrigued by the survey they quote. I wonder how scientific it was.

Anyway, if they continue to advertise their plan like that, they might as well not have come up with a plan at all. What, they can't even pretend to be sympathetic to Palestinians? If so, then that shows you how much they believe in their plan. If they think it's such a great plan, they shouldn't think twice about adopting neutral if not pro-Palestinian language. What family with any dignity is going to take their offer in the language it's presented?

[FourthBase]

That's ethnic cleansing. You may not like the term, but that's what you're proposing.

Dude, the entire idea is contingent on the Palestinians liking it. Not being tricked into liking it, either. Liking it. Preferring it. Generally speaking, people don't like being ethnically cleansed. Like I said, realize you are reading wrong and re-think what I'm saying, the totality of what I've posted in this thread, not just a fucking phrase here or there. I'm trying to write with both hands, metaphorically speaking.

And incidentally, the number of Palestinians "who want to destroy Israelis" is miniscule, despite what the racial-profiling US media or the two wings of the US war party would have you believe.

Whatever. Even if 100% of Palestinians wanted to, who could really blame them for wanting to? One can only blame however many have acted on that want, in any capacity.

[FourthBase]

9. When answering the general question “What would induce you to relocate in order to emigrate permanently to another country?”, only 15% answered that there is no such inducement. 71% specified a number of various factors that would so induce them, among them: a guarantee of employment abroad (16%), significant financial aid (19%), a guarantee of good housing and good education (14%) etc.

That's a most encouraging sign for my idea, if accurate. Granted, the majority of the other questions were loaded with horseshit, might as well have been shameless propaganda. I would love to see a neutral survey conducted that asked a sampling of all Palestinians just variations of that question alone, including a combination of all of those inducements and more, for which I bet that "no such" 15% would drop closer to 0%. Especially if "another country" were also replaced by "a new sovereign state of Palestine".

[kenoma]

What, they can't even pretend to be sympathetic to Palestinians?

Amateurs! But that's where you can help them, right Fourthbase? With the pretending?

[FourthBase]

Amateurs! But that's where you can help them, right Fourthbase? With the pretending?

Yeah, asshole, except I'm not pretending. I'm not asking either side to pretend, either. I'm just pointing out that if this group were serious about their plan, they'd themselves probably be pretending to be at least neutral.

One possible metaphor/model for the idea: A battered crazy bitch of a wife and her rapist pig of a husband, who will despise each other eternally (their innocent kids all get along, although many of them are loyal to only one or the other) reach a surprisingly painless (more or less) divorce agreement, in which the husband gets the prized family home (originally owned by the wife, but long before that owned by the husband's ancestors) and the wife gets a ridiculously rich cash payment and a fanastic home for herself in a reclusive countryside, with the kids being divided between them, all way happier than they were living in the miserable marriage.

A problem applying that metaphor, accurate or not, is that it presupposes a female (i.e. unmanly) role for the Palestinians, which I imagine (doesn't take much imagination) they wouldn't like, no matter how it depicts them to be the most aggrieved.

[barracuda]

Considering the present atmosphere in this country, I'm not sure a subnation of Palestinians would fare too much better in any area of America. Canada, maybe? Mexico, since the temperature might be more suitable?

Had to quote that one just to be sure I was reading it correctly.

I think it's a great idea. Give each Palestinian ten million US dollars, which is about what I would require to be ethnically cleansed out of California, and, let's see, say, about four million Palestinians times ten million dollars is... 400,000,000,000,000. Four hundred trillion, - yes, fine idea.

[FourthBase]

Considering the present atmosphere in this country, I'm not sure a subnation of Palestinians would fare too much better in any area of America. Canada, maybe? Mexico, since the temperature might be more suitable?

Had to quote that one just to be sure I was reading it correctly.

Oh what, it's uncouth to consider climate as a factor?

I think it's a great idea. Give each Palestinian ten million US dollars, which is about what I would require to be ethnically cleansed out of California, and, let's see, say, about four million Palestinians times ten million dollars is... 400,000,000,000,000. Four hundred trillion, - yes, fine idea.

Give me a fucking break.

How about 5 billion a year alone from the Israeli military budget, plus another...say...395 billion a year (how much would be saved in the absence of Palestine/Israel-related wars alone?) in contributions from around the world. Particularly from countries with a history of contributing to the big fucking mess, like Germany and Britain and the USA and several Arab nations and many more. So let's see, 400 billion divided by 4 million...that'd be $100,000 per Palestinian. Get both sides to chill for a few years, maybe triple it. $300,000 per Palestinian.

I'm fucking disgusted that you would call my idea ethnic cleansing. It's not. Call it whatever the fuck you want, I guess. I don't care what you call it, ultimately. But. Let's get real for a second. If the situation for Palestinians is comparable to the pre-extermination situation for Jews during WWII, then what on fucking earth could be distasteful about this idea, which ought to be comparable to a ransom strategy to save Palestinian lives. Except, and here's the kicker: The Palestinians would basically be ransoming themselves. And basically getting everything they want, except for their preferred location for a Palestinian State.

[FourthBase]

People who call this idea ethnic cleansing, knowing what real ethnic cleansing has occurred in the last 100 years, including the real current of ethnic cleansing occurring to Palestinians right now, should slap themselves in the face.

[kenoma]

A problem applying that metaphor, accurate or not, is that it presupposes a female (i.e. unmanly) role for the Palestinians, which I imagine (doesn't take much imagination) they wouldn't like, no matter how it depicts them to be the most aggrieved.

It also presupposes a marriage. It's an incredibly dumb analogy.

[FourthBase]

Asshole, take note: "Rapist pig of a husband". Meaning, forced marriage.

EDIT: I should have been clearer about that aspect, I suppose. And not only a forced marriage, which would adequately capture the UN creation of Israel, but a forced marriage in which the husband then goes on to regularly beat and rape the wife, driving her crazy.

[kenoma]

And not only a forced marriage, which would adequately capture the UN creation of Israel, but a forced marriage in which the husband then goes on to regularly beat and rape the wife, driving her crazy.

In those circumstances, one would naturally hope the wife gets to keep the house - especially if it was the wife's house to begin with. So, case closed.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

FB, governments stay in power and maintain social hierarchies by having 'enemies' and convincing their populations that they need protection from those 'enemies.'

So it would not be advantageous to 'buy them out' and thereby neutralize the enemy dynamic.

Michael Moore made a fabulous commercial comedy illustrating this in 1994 called 'Canadian Bacon.' An old politico takes unpopular post-Cold War President Alan Alda aside to explain how the Gulf of Tonkin scam worked so well and might be worth reconsidering.

The unpopular US president asks his generals to fabricate a military crisis of some kind to bolster his administration.

After reviewing a list of old used-up enemies, President Alda asks "what about world terrorism?"
A general dissuades him from this idea by saying "We can't justify re-opening all our missile factories because of a few guys with car bombs."

All too true. So Moore's movie idea was stolen and amplified into a far less believable uber-fantasy called 'Wag the Dog' in 1997.

[FourthBase]

And not only a forced marriage, which would adequately capture the UN creation of Israel, but a forced marriage in which the husband then goes on to regularly beat and rape the wife, driving her crazy.

In those circumstances, one would naturally hope the wife gets to keep the house - especially if it was the wife's house to begin with. So, case closed.

Let's say most outside observers think the wife should get the house, never should have lost ownership to begin with, and -- although the forced marriage was legally arranged by a third party -- blame the husband for wanting to marry her in the first place, just for her house! When there were other houses on the market, with more compatible women inside, and had the husband made a rational choice he might have become a far different man, because he wasn't always a rapist pig. In fact, before he married her, he had been the most battered and raped wife ever. But the abuse drove him crazy, and he underwent a sex change that went horribly wrong.

But so ownership of the prized family home is the obstacle. Is it? Mind you, no matter how long the lawyers negotiate, no matter how brilliant they are, the forced marriage will continue, and the beating and the raping will continue, until it probably leads to both sides murdering each other and killing all the kids in the process. But hey, if fighting over the prized family home is worth all that, if the wife won't accept a new home but absolutely has to have the prized family home, then fuck it. I'm just some neutral dickhead down the street who frankly despises both parents because of what they're doing to their blameless kids.

Case un-fucking-closed, indefinitely.