"The
power men possess to annoy me, I give them by a weak curiosity."
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
It is said
by the prudent that good fences make good neighbors, and the
prudent — in times like ours — often are worth listening
to. Anyone who has
been paying attention by now is aware that the Israelis are building
a security fence roughly along the border of the 1967 armistice
line, in an attempt to stem the flow of militants from the West
Bank into Israel. The security fence has been criticized as a
preparation for an apartheid system and a de facto land grab,
because it actually is located within the Green Line and annexes
a number of Palestinian farms and homes formerly regarded to fall
within the disputed territories, and under the "control"
of the Palestinian Authority, whatever that means.
In weighing
the pros and cons of such an endeavor, your correspondent, who
has some experience in both regions, feels that there is a case
to be made for inducing the Israelis to stop construction of the
security fence in the West Bank and move their operation to the
West Coast of the United States, where new provisions could be
made that would benefit all parties involved. The security fence
and indeed the whole state of Israel are in clear defiance of
international law forbidding the colonization of lands seized
in war. Israel's neighbor, Iraq, recently was bombed back into
the Middle Ages (which might not be such a bad thing since the
Arabs maintain that is when their civilization was at its high
point) under exactly these auspices.
While it
is extremely unlikely that any American administration would pursue
this course of action with Israel, it should be noted that with
some oil- and allegedly cocaine-crazed Texan in the White House,
anything is possible. In order to defer such a calamitous fate
for Israel, the U.S. Department of State might be able persuade
the Israelis to halt the construction of the security fence and
offer them a lucrative contract building it around San Francisco.
There are
many political, economic and strategic advantages to this course
of action. In the post-Sept. 11 world, security has become an
increasing concern with the American public, and there are few
regimes that hold the United States and its ideals in such virulent
contempt as the current liberal regime in San Francisco. In the
event of a separation of San Francisco from the rest of the United
States, provisions must be made for diplomatic contact, lest relations
take on the abominable character of those between America and
Iran. Henry Kissinger would be an obvious choice as Ambassador
to San Francisco, as he has many years of dealing with hostile
communist governments.
The Israelis
likewise will benefit, as there are arguably more Palestinian
snugglers in San Francisco than in all of the West Bank, and Israel
would be able to bar San Franciscans from obtaining tourist visas
for Israel. American parents, like those of Rachel Corrie, also
would be put at ease, because their children would be prevented
from running off to the West Bank and Gaza in fits of socialist
pique to be run over by bulldozers. The construction contract
also would prove a great boon to Israel, being that it is in the
depths of a recession, caused by, among other things, the Palestinian
intifadeh. No doubt American contractors will howl, especially
those who serve the Bay Area. But let them — the rates they
charge are outlandish, and with the rise of globalization the
public stands to benefit greatly from subcontracting the job to
a bunch of 19-year-old Israeli conscripts. The people of San Francisco,
in any case, are unfit to choose a contractor on their own; they
are much more adept at finding a stud in a bar than one in a wall.
The San Franciscans
might have a serious problem with this plan, though that is debatable.
It has been suggested that the San Franciscans are, at their core,
unable to be truly serious about anything, which is evident by
some of the their more prominent instruments of foreign and domestic
policy, most notably the mushy hug and the adolescent squeal.
Your correspondent,
during extended travel through San Francisco, attempted to ascertain
public sentiment for such a policy through a series of interviews.
The first consisted of one with a disheveled girl with open sores
all over her face.
Correspondent: "What do you do?"
Open-sore
girl: "(mumble mumble)" … at which point she paid
for her coffee
with spare change she had been able to obtain by begging, and
shuffled off.
Another conversation was with a guy passed out in his own urine,
feces and vomit on the sidewalk of South Van Ness Street, a major
thoroughfare.
Correspondent: "How would you feel about a security fence
built around this city by Israeli conscripts?"
Passed-out
guy: "(indecipherable), (vomit), (undecipherable)"
A third and
final interview was attempted on the subject of the potential
to find enough domestic skilled labor with the requisite work
ethic to undertake such a large endeavor. However, since your
correspondent attempted this interview with the crackhead who
just had stolen a significant amount of belongings out the back
of your correspondent's truck, the work-ethic pundit was, alas,
nowhere to be found.
The new tack
in U.S.-San Franciscan relations would no doubt lead to an increase
in the already large deficit in San Francisco. In order to continue
in their profligate ways, the city of San Francisco must be given
priority with the International Monetary Fund. The IMF should,
of course, be allowed to apply conditions to its lending. Conditions
might include, but not be limited to: 1. Take that jewelry out
of your face. 2. Get a job. 3. Stop whining. A second round of
lending might attach more conditions, for instance: 1. Shave.
2. Cut your hair. 3. Stop smoking all that dope.
Though a
policy of this scope never has been attempted, the conditions
appear auspicious and with proper diplomacy all the way around,
we as Americans will be able to live up the values of the U.S.
Constitution and the San Franciscans will be able to continue
to practice the values of their patron mendicant saint, and we
all might live in peace yet.
|
advertisement
|
advertisement
