Giving away Judea and Samaria – or giving away Indiana?

Posted: December 15, 2009 in America, antisemitism, Gaza, Hamas, Islam, Israel, jihad, Palestinians, Source: Marylou's America

By Marylou Barry

What if, in response to intense diplomatic pressure from the world community, the United States government one day issued the following statement?

“We have determined that it is in the national best interest of the United States to disengage from the state of Indiana.”


Like most Americans, native Indianans have been very hospitable over the years about taking in foreign refugees fleeing oppressive regimes. But what if some of those refugees, who came from hostile backgrounds and never thought very highly of us anyway, one day decided that they too wanted a homeland? And, because they had lived in Indiana so long and had gotten rather used to it, that the homeland they wanted was … Indiana?

Now Indiana isn’t very big, the argument could be made. Largely farmland, it takes up only 1 percent of the U.S. landmass. What is that to us who have so much? Couldn’t we redistribute just a little of our real estate to those who have none? Wouldn’t that be only “fair”?

“Are you nuts?” a handful of constitutionalists would surely scream. “These foreigners can’t come over here and set up a state for themselves in the middle of somebody else’s country!”

Logically speaking, all sane debate should end right there. But imagine that, in its obsession for peace with the immigrants and continued favor with the world community, our government actually found some legal loophole to give Indiana away. Imagine, further, that the following scenario then unfolded:

  • To avoid angering the immigrants by requiring them to live near people they didn’t like, i.e., non-immigrants, the U.S. government then sent in troops to forcibly deport all native-born Indianans to the other 49 states, where they had no homes or jobs.
  • Unable to run the high-tech agricultural infrastructure left behind by the evicted Indiana farmers, the immigrants paved over the fertile fields and greenhouses that once fed much of the nation. In their place they built factories for rockets and bombs, with which they then pelted their neighbors in surrounding states whose land they also coveted. In fact, in the four years that followed, nearly 3 million warheads slammed across the border into Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan, all compliments of the New Indiana.
  • Conveniently forgetting their own complaints of oppression in their countries of origin, immigrant leaders quickly enacted a flurry of oppressive new laws that real Hoosiers never would have tolerated – laws obstructing freedom of speech, press, and association – even laws against music, forgetting your hat, wearing short sleeves, and laughing immoderately!

Yes, Indiana would be a mess, but what if our government, instead of learning from its idiocy, four years later determined to repeat it? What if a second immigrant group, emboldened by the first group’s success in appropriating a whole state for itself, decided it too wanted a piece of the pie? What if it upped the ante from 1 percent of our national landmass to 10 percent, a statistic analogous to the state of Texas? And what if our government helped the land transfer out by mandating a construction freeze forbidding Texans from building or adding onto their homes, but allowing immigrants living in the state to do so?

Hold on!” incensed Texans would roar, remembering the uprooting of the Indianans four years earlier. “Yes! Hold on!” residents of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana would echo. They too would recall the bombs landing on homes and schools in neighboring states and wouldn’t want to live in terror the way the people of the Midwest had to live now.

But the federal bureaucrats who brought the travesty about wouldn’t care what the Texans thought, but only about keeping their jobs intact, the public ignorant, the cheap oil flowing, and their foreign suppliers appeased, just one more day at a time.

The parallels in this story are simple.

  1. Indiana, USA, like Gaza, Israel, occupies only 1 percent of its country’s landmass.
  2. The state of Texas, like the administrative district of Judea and Samaria (sometimes referred to as the ‘West Bank’), occupies 10 percent of its country’s landmass. Judea and Samaria are home to 18 percent of the national population. The U.S. state coming closest to this statistic is also the state of Texas.
  3. The United States is 409 times the geographic size of Israel. Therefore the 7,200 rockets physically fired from Gaza since the 2005 “disengagement” equate to the nearly 3 million fired from Indiana on Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio in the allegory.

The United States of America, which has been apologizing to everyone for every imaginary offense it could think of since Barack Obama took over the White House, actually owes Israel an apology for pressuring it to give away Gaza in 2005. Any reasonable person could have predicted that this would never have resulted in peace, any more than giving away Indiana would have, and history has borne this out. But instead of confessing its folly, the United States is now pressuring Israel again, this time to give up Judea and Samaria. If they do so, the Israelis would not only repeat their 2005 disaster but compound it by a factor of 10.

It’s past time for our government to bring George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton home and stop meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation. If Judea and Samaria were Texas, would our policy be the same?


Comments are closed.