“A Daring Solution to the Middle East Dilemma”
Ellis Weiner at the Huffington Post offers a unique way to resolve to the Middle East situation.
He’s only half-kidding. Something like this may be the only solution to a conflict which, at its core, is neither political nor religious, but tribal.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:54 AM
Thanks for the link — I was transported back to the glory days of the National Lampoon. Anyone who enjoys quality humor (I almost said ‘good humor’) writing should read his post, and then click the link to the rest of the posts.
His suggestion is as pragmatic as any other that I’ve seen. The responding posts at that site all reflect why no lasting changes are likely to occur, at least not before something catastrophic happens that forces everyone involved to figure out a way to co-exist.
Which of course, could just as easily drive them to annihilate each other.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:55 AM
Didn’t Ellis Weiner write the Howard the Duck movie novelization?
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:20 PM
And let’s not forget the real advantage: if you put all the Jews in Utah, then it would be much easier to herd them all into concentration camps, and put a finish to them for good this time. Those damned Jews in Israel insist on shooting back when you try to kill them.
Remember the new UN motto: The only good Jew is a dead Jew.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:24 PM
I assume someone will now say, “criticism of Israel does not equal anti-semitism”.
The debate on Israel has run it’s course. I think I must have seen every argument and counter argument by now. People are strongly polarized and that’s it.
I apprectiate that you picked this article because it is a sincere attempt at side stepping all the problems this issue creates in an innovative way. Problem is that real people are involved. And Charles is right, if you look at the responding posts, I get the strong impression that the solution is not addressing the people involved in the problem.
People feel incredibly passionate on both sides of this issue who have never set foot in the Middle East. I can’t think of a foreign affairs issue that people are so polarized about.
And I figure it’s a big reason nobody has really jumped to comment on this one. Even though everyone has an opinion on it.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:47 PM
Bob: Ellis Weiner *did* write the HTD novelization. I had no idea — I don’t think I’ve ever seen the book.
Bart: I dunno. One could make the argument that the most dangerous place in the world today to be a Jew is Israel.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:57 AM
First of all, let’s get rid of euphemisms that can be twisted like “anti-semitism”. It’s Jew hating.
Second of all, I didn’t see any world outcry on the continual attacks on Israel by Hezbollah over the last 6 years, aided and abetted by the Lebanese government and the U.N.
Israel is being held to standards that no other nation has been held to. What makes Israel different? It’s a Jewish nation.
So, yes, it IS Jew hating.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:38 AM
I thought Kurt Andersen had an interesting column in this past week’s New York Magazine. (http://www.nymag.com/news/imperialcity/18467/index.html) It’s not as funny as Weiner’s, but it makes some good points.
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:30 PM
Steve,
I think it’s actually illegal to be Jewish in Jordan. I suppose if you HID the fact you were Jewish than it would be safer. But I would guess if you went out with a yarmulka and talas singing, “I’m a Jewish person!” you would be in some trouble.
I believe much of the Middle East is like this to some degree.
August 8th, 2006 at 4:24 AM
I’m so tempted to post my proposed U.S. policy for dealing with the Middle East. With two paragraphs, I think I could boil the blood of every Jew *and* every Muslim reading this blog.
See, I think Bush *almost* got it right at first, back in the very early days of his presidency. But, typically for this administration, he omitted one critical component of the strategy. He forgot to *announce* it in a manner that would have been equally clear — and horrifying — to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. And the plan? Very simple. “Mr. Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. PA President, we’re leaving you to finish your own fight. And your fight is one we’ll no longer support with money, weapons, and humanitarian aid. You’ve got Condi’s cell number. Give her a ring when you’re all ready to stop actiing like three-year-olds.” And then we turn our backs, walk out the diplomatic and military doors, and fly away home. No further negotiation until and unless Condi gets make-up calls from both sides, and until they phone each other.
What’s to lose, really? If the phone calls come, the problem can be solved. If both sides go completely berserk and wipe each other out, the problem is solved in a different way; and no other Arab state can complain about the plight of the Palestinians anymore; it’s just a way of accelerating what’s been happening spasmodically in the Middle East for half a century.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:10 AM
First of all, the United States is addicted to oil. Over the last 25 years or so, we knew that the supply of oil was both limited and subject to political problems. However, we have done nothing about it. The one stop-gap energy source which we created, and are the only country in the world who has not embraced it, is nuclear; we allowed a well-funded disinformation campaign scare us away from it.
Now, what does this have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflicts? Most immediately, Israel has nuclear weapons. And their last line of defense is, if they go down, they’re taking everybody else with them. Which means that the United States is stuck in a position where it has to keep the oil owners happy, but keep Israel alive. Hence, the tightrope walking.
Now, secondarily, we are dealing with an element in the Islamic world who wants to eventually kill anybody who is not them. Israel, being in their midst, is only the first target. And if they get nuclear capabilities, nobody in the world is safe.