I could ask the same questions of the do-nothing alternative. If the world sits by and waits, how long before more Muslim countries go nuclear? How long before they catch up technologically to the Israelis and Americans, and overwhelm them through sheer numbers and geographical logistics? Is there some sort of fantasy where, if we just pretend like it’s going to be OK for long enough, Muslim hatred will dissipate and all will be good? I really doubt it.
So then, eventually there will be some sort of catastrophic conclusion to this scenario. I’m suggesting one possible avenue out of it. It will be bloody hell. All the conclusions will be bloody hell. Will this be less of a mess? That’s essentially what I’m asking. What’s the least-terrible end game here?
Does not matter at all. There is plenty of land that is biblically defined, and to which the biblical definition has absolutely no modern relevance. If you use the Torah as a justification for modern political action, you’re no better than the Islamic fundamentalists. Theocracy is theocracy.
Bolding mine. Historically, that’s exactly what has happened, over and over and over again. In fact, after the Spanish inquisition, the Ottoman sultan Bayazid II is reported to have said that “the Catholic monarch Ferdinand was wrongly considered as wise, since he impoverished Spain by the expulsion of the Jews, and enriched Turkey.” That worked out fine (Jews were not quite free from persecution, but while the empire flourished they did ok) until the economic decline of the 1800s and the consequent rise of bigotry and conservatism that usually accompanies such periods. At that point they started getting massacred yet again. This cycle has been repeated many times throughout history (the Jews were originally welcomed in Spain as well), so you’ll forgive us in being a tad skeptical and for having a vested interest in there being a slice of the world in which we would never have to worry about living as second class citizens.
Sorry, I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at here.
Bouncy castles, not houses. Maybe bouncy temples and mosques too. If we’re lucky, people there 50 years from now will still know what a “house” is, not just see them in magazines from some preapocalyptic era.
So, your argument here is, since the Jews are all going to be slaughtered anyway, we should just go ahead, do it now, and get it over with? Sorry, but you’re going to need a more persuasive argument than that if you want to me sign on to your second Holocaust.
It sounds like you’re positing committing war crimes on massive scales against both Levant area Jews and Muslims because they aren’t getting along there. I don’t see how this isn’t akin to using a nuclear response to a fist fight between two rival High School football teams.
The Jews were already in the region in large numbers before the British drew the lines, in fact they outnumbered the Muslims (80% of the population) in the area where the borders were drawn. Israel’s land was not all that great especially without modern farming techniques so it was not very densely populated, it’s a myth that the Jews were a minority in their initial borders and one easily disproven by reading the history. If they hadn’t created a Jewish state it’s likely those Jews would have been killed, or would have fought back against a German style genocide and created a state anyway.
Your concept of wars/conquest/destruction in general are also childish and unrealistic. There’s simply no reason to assume Israel’s Arab neighbors will ever destroy Israel. Most of them don’t actually want to, they might be happy if Israel was “disappeared” by the hand of God, but they sure as shit don’t want to deal with conquering, occupying that patch of land even if they could. They’d have to bankrupt their country to do it, they’d also have to deal with all the Muslim population in current Palestinian lands and in Israel proper, many of whom would not be happy citizens of whatever Arab countries you envision carving up Israel.
Not to mention Israel almost certainly has or will have in a few years a submarine nuclear launch capability. This means that whatever happens to Israel they can likely make sure the capital cities and several other major ones of any Arab states that attack them will be destroyed. I can’t name a single Arab state that is willing to trade their capital just to destroy Israel. Not to mention no Arab state has nukes and many/most never will, and there’s a non-zero chance of inviting a nuclear counterattack from one of the major nuclear powers outside the region if you start nuking Israel.
I’m saying, that people being “hostile” is not a good enough reason for drastic measures to be taken by the international community. If people get richly rewarded for acting threatening and mentally unstable, then it will happen again and again in other places.
I think this is a silly topic anyway. I personally think it would be cool if the world’s trouble spots were British Commonwealth and staunchly Anglican, but their destiny really needs to be charted by the people who live there, first and foremost.
No, it’s a whole lot crazier than most other scenarios for world peace. Also, nauseatingly inhumane. Also also, exactly the opposite of world peace, because you’d need to fight a massive war to do it first.
Seriously, there is no part of what you’ve posted here that is even minimally well-thought out, or remotely moral.
As already said, there is deep religious significance to much of the Israeli territory, as well as cultural history that goes back thousands of years. This isn’t something that can just be lightly dismissed.
Does anyone doubt for one minute that if such a thing happened, the Palestinians would immediately be at war with whatever authority administered this “park”?
I am sorry that your people have suffered so much over the ages. I’d like nothing more than to see you all live in peace with your neighbors and flourish. I am sure most of your saner countryfolk think the same, as well as the majority of sane Muslims. Sadly, our world is not run by the sane but by the vicious and the bloodthirsty.
I think this is a very fair and interesting response, thanks. And is “Levant area” a good, neutral term for describing the totality of Israel + WB + Gaza? I’ve never heard that term before.
That’s why it should become a religious sanctuary instead of a permanent war zone. It holds significance to all Abrahamic religions. None of which, ostensibly, are fans of eternal war.
This is probably true
Isn’t that what “peacekeeping” is all about? Using a large militarized force to stop further violence?
I wasn’t making any claims; just explaining why suggestions to the current Jewish residents of Israel to rent them U-Hauls and drive them to Canada are not likely to be well-met.
And that’s OK. I’m not trying to convince you. I’m trying to understand why this is or is not a good idea. Martin Hyde’s comment about the history and economics and logistics behind it was illuminating.
I posted in GD not necessarily because I want to prove anything, but because it would’ve ended up here anyway regardless.
There is nothing “migratory” about being forced off your land. What on earth makes you think Israelis would leave without a fight?
Well, with all due respect, you’ll have to do a lot better job explaining the advantages of this plan to the UN than you’re doing here. How many members of the UNSC do you see agreeing to this?
People living there have to ask for it first. I’m hardly an expert, but I’m pretty sure none of the factions are asking for the entire country to be depopulated. Doing so in that context would essentially make you a neo-Stalinist
Of course it can. You just have to make light of religion. Imagine there’s no yadda yadda. Probably not in my lifetime. Still, at some point the imaginary friend fuckery has **got **to wear thin… hasn’t it ?
As for cultural history going back thousands of years, I’m not seeing modern Americans recognizing a Right of Return to Cahokia. “It was their land, three thousand years ago” means fuck all every and anywhere else in the world. Why should Israel be any different ?
The answer is, of course, it isn’t. It just has the might to make the right.
