|
This line: "Deed your house to the local indian tribe and then get back to me."
Well, first off... I happen to be Native. And I don't mean like "My great grandmother was a Cherokee princess", but that pretty much the entirety of my father's side of the family is Choctaw from the Mississippi band. There's extended family among the Oklahoma band (and by marriage we've got a few Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Fox on that side of the family, too). As for the local natives, well, I could take a drive down SR 510 and have a chat with the Nisqually about your idea, but I don't think they'd be too keen, since the property value isn't that great and it's kind of a hassle to get here. Plus it smells like Puget Sound mud every couple of hours. On the bright side though I could stop by a buddy's place down there, have a few bowls, and the two of us can have a laugh at your expense.
I believe your train of thought missed your stop. Hell, I'm not even sure where you thought that particular train was going, man. You're saying that the Israelis are the "indians" in this conflict? What the hell kind of grades did you get in history class, goddamn.
Rather than provide a basic history lesson to yet another person who will just get terribly confused by it though, I'll answer your initial question of what land I was planning to give them.
I'm a supporter of the one-state solution. "Jigga say what?!" you ask? It's very simple. An independent Palestine will fail, even if Israel goes bugnuts and decides to give in and hand over the Right of Return, the 1967 borders, and East Jerusalem. Palestine will have a huge population compared to the land's ability to sustain it, even if they developed it to the max. the Palestinians will have two choices - starve, or go into deep, deep debt. They'll choose the latter because, well, there really isn't a choice there. So Israel will be flanked by a deeply impoverished nation of people who still probably aren't that fond of Israel.
Does this sound like it's going to resolve peacefully to you? Because it doesn't to me. Israel's safety is dependent on Palestine not failing, should it become an independent state. That should be perfectly clear to anyone who's following along so far, right? Therefore Israel either gets to keep whooping the shit out of Palestinians, or Palestine can become an economic dependent on Israel. Neither situation sounds too kosher (or halal, if you prefer) for either group involved.
Basically the two-state solution, even under the best of conditions, is a temporary patch on a simple logistical problem - there's not enough resources for two nations in the erstwhile Palestinian Mandate. All the political arguing in the world isn't going to change the ecology. The existence of two nations in the region guarantees conflict, and it doesn't matter one fucking bit what color they are, what god they worship, what language they speak, or anything. ANY two populations in the same situation (and there have been many in the past to draw reference from) are faced with a difficult choice - Fight, or unite.
I wouldn't give the Palestinians Israeli land. Nor would I give the Israelis Palestinian land. Given the power I would simply erase the distinction, because that is the only method for reaching a lasting peace that I can see in this conflict.
|