There’s something very Dilbertish about the problems in the Middle East, in the sense that the root problems are based on absurdity, the leaders are incompetent, and the people who are just trying to mind their own business are getting screwed. It’s a lot like your job. What the region needs is an absurd solution for an absurd problem.
What you’re about to read isn’t a serious proposal for peace in the Middle East. It’s a thought experiment. The point is to figure out why it wouldn’t work.
The Dilbert Peace Plan is flawed, of course. But any peace plan would have its downside. So judge it against the alternatives, which so far include the annihilation of Israel or wishful thinking that a few hundred-million angry Muslims “get over it.”
The central part of this plan is inspired by comments that several of you left on The Dilbert Blog. I just put some lipstick on it.
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?