DILBERT PEACE PLAN:
On paper, Israel deeds all of its lands to Jordan – a relatively
friendly Muslim country – and leases the land back for eternity. That
way, Muslims satisfy their religious requirement that land once
belonging (in their opinion) to Muslims, always belongs to Muslims.
In this plan, Israel would pay some manageable “rent” for all of the
land it occupies, including the settlements. Think of it like a shop
owner paying protection money to the local Mafia. It’s repugnant, but
it works. And it’s cheaper than permanent war.
The rent money would go into a Muslim-managed fund that benefits
health and welfare for the local Muslim population, or perhaps
reparations for the Muslim families displaced when Israel was formed.
The annual rent would never increase, so over time it would approach
zero in real value because of inflation. 200 years from now, the rent
would be almost entirely symbolic.
In return for this psychological concession by Israel, Iran would
allow nuclear inspections, and all the major Muslim factions (Syria,
Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) would recognize Israel’s right to exist –
AS RENTERS.
The armed groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas would have to renounce
violence and get rid of their larger weapons. But that’s okay, because
technically they already won the war and “wiped Israel off the map.”
All that would be left of Israel would be 7 million renters that looked
and acted exactly like the old Israel.
And of course Jerusalem would have to be shared in some friendly fashion.
In the Dilbert Peace Plan, Israel would become more secure than
ever, and might even save money when comparing the country’s rent to
the cost of ongoing war.
Yes, this plan is absurd, but view it in context. Muslims aren’t
allowed to have mortgages because of an Islamic rule against paying
interest. So Muslims employ financial workarounds that accomplish the
same thing as a mortgage without technically paying interest. In other
words, there is a strong precedent for accepting financial workarounds
to preserve Muslim values. Renting Israel to the Jews isn’t that
different.
Your first reaction to this plan will be that the leaders in the
Middle East would never agree to it. And you’d be right, if it were up
to them today. But consider that even unelected leaders strive for
popularity in their policies. It’s a good way to avoid assassination.
The key is to find a plan that makes sense to the average Israeli and
average Iranian (for example). An idea with that much power would
spread on its own. The leaders would follow, eventually claiming the
idea as their own.
I’m an optimist, and I think that good ideas eventually eat bad
ones. It just takes time. The problem with the Middle East is that no
one has yet thought of a good idea. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that
the Dilbert Peace Plan is a good idea, but I think that figuring out
why it wouldn’t work is a step in the right direction.
Your question of the day: Why wouldn’t it work?
No comments:
Post a Comment