Canada’s Debate

"Your confusing thesis has captured my attention; tell me more."

February 5, 2008

Plan for Peace in Palestine

World politicsFiled under: World politics
By: Joseph @ 6:43 am

I’ve got a quick and easy solution for solving the Israel/Palestine debate. Lets take everyone who has publicly declared one “side” of the issue as at fault, and kick them out of their homes. Every single one… We can then shoe-horn them into Israel/Palestine, and give everyone currently occupying that contentious strip of land their pick of the newly vacated homes. Honestly, I can’t see a problem with this solution…

By my estimates at least half of the Arab world would be depopulated… all those Palestinians who profess piety I’m sure would leap at the opportunity to move into the spacious (and ARAB free) palaces of Saudi Arabia; they’d lose Jerusalem but gain Mecca, seems like trading up to me. The Jews and evangelical (read “mentally unstable”) Christians could integrate into the depopulated cultural centres of their respective faiths and find the infrastructure for their beliefs already built, without the fear of terrorism or death. Lastly, about 1-2 billion idiotic demagogues would have to live in a richly deserved Gideon-esque nightmare.

Anyone who can claim that one group or another is “at fault” in the Israel/Palestine debate deserves whatever sort of hell we can create for them. Trying to deconstruct 3000 years of political and religious strife by villainizing one side is about as productive as trying to perform brain surgery with a Howitzer.

The truth of the matter is that Israel/Palestine is a political conflict that has become incredibly entangled with religion. Always has been and always will be. Just try telling that to everyone who has picked a “team” to “root for.” Why is it that we are so eager to treat it like a religious conflict with political implications? In religious debates “specific morality” is the spectrum by which we evaluate developments and arrive at conclusions, and I can’t see any scenario where that process results in real peace.

Say what you will about political debates, but the criteria for a solution is simply achieving the best possible outcome for the largest number of people involved; and the mechanism is usually compromise. Seems like a more promising avenue to me…

So lets start helping our “friends” pack; there’s a lot of moving to be done.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


 

Liberalism is...

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.

William Gladstone

Recent Comments:

In Harper sucks
Bill Baskett: i don't generally get involved in political discussion since it tends to go nowhere and all ends up the same. so the "however" is a campaign flyer...

In Harper sucks
Ross Moore: Cretien was an asshole. But at least he was willing to fight for Canada.

In Harper sucks
Ross Moore: Harper would sign anything as long as a yankee asked him. He is a royalist and a capitalist. He does not believe in Canada and we should not trust...

In Bloggers can rest easy...
Jeanette Sampson: hateable mossberry mockernut unwall mancipatory vochysiaceae clayer admedian U.S. Fitness Products http://www2.pbs.org/wgbh/pa...

In Bloggers can rest easy...
Staci Griffith: hateable mossberry mockernut unwall mancipatory vochysiaceae clayer admedian Wellington High School Debate Team...

February 2008
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829  


Themes: