TMLutas has a creative idea.
Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
4 thoughts on “A New Twist on “Land for Peace””
Vae victis was always the rule. If the sword must adjudicate the matter, the one who first drew may not complain of the decision.
I have often thought we could use our checkbooks to fight terrorism. Every time there is a terrorist attack we figure out what the terrorist who the terrorist are angry at and write them a check. In Iraq, we could announce that we were dispatching another 1000 troops to the country every time a Coalition soldier is killed. The effect of this would be to automatically dampen the sense of victory that attacks give to the terrorist. If Hamas knew that every time they killed an Israeli, the US would pay Israel, say 10 million dollars, it would rob them of any sense of accomplishment.
Of course, you would have to be careful not create perverse incentives but I think the idea has merit.
The problem with that is building a moveable wall that can secure the annexed territory.
Why not a simple tit-for-tat scheme? Every time the palestinians explode a bus in israel, the israeli’s explode a nuke in Gaza or the west bank.
This allows an eventual solution without requiring the unlikely “and then the palestinians come to their senses” step.
There’s no real need to invade for every square meter. There’s plenty of Israeli occupied and militarily controlled land on the West Bank that could simply be annexed without changing the situation on the ground, except at the negotiating table. Once that’s used up, you can do it in blocs, merely cleaning out larger and larger buffer zones and move the wall in square kilometer chunks (or whatever the engineers/architects/builders say is practical).
Comments are closed.