Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, January 6, 2009 10:29 AM

  A Simplistic, Yet Faulty, Analogy

  While I understand the reasons for trying to analogize the Israeli-Palestinian situation with a hypothetical clash between the United States and Native Americans, Mr. Kamiya's hypothesis is entirely faulty. A more accurate analogy follows.

  First, from the beginning, Europeans (herafter US people) would have been in (and been native to) the land that became the United States along with the other "Native Americans". After the US people successfully developed the land and built up industry, others would have poured in from Canada and Mexico and then called themselves Native Americans. Centuries later, numerous additional US people would have come to the land legally, bought up land, and lived with the Native Americans. A decision would then be made by the UN to divide up the land. All the land East of the Mississippi would be made into a Native American state (akin to modern day Jordan, which was cut from Palestinian land). The US people would not be allowed to live anywhere East of the Mississippi and a migration of US people West would take place.

  Next, the UN would decide to split the remaining land into land for the US people and the Native Americans. The approximate portion of the land given to the US people would be only 1/3 or so of the remaining land. The US people accept this partition and want to live in peace with the Native Americans. The Native Americans do not. All US people living in Canada, Mexico and the rest of the Americas are kicked out, forced to flee to the United States (made up of little more than California, Nevada and Arizona) without any compensation. The fact that these refugees (similar in number to the displaced Native Americans when the United Stated was created) were absorbed by the United States without compensation would be conveniently ignored.

  Immediately, the Native Americans, Canada, Mexico and the rest of the Americas would war against the US people and promise to kill them all and drive them to the sea. Miraculously, the United States would survive. Mexico would take control of New Mexico and maintain Native Americans as pawns in refugee camps. Canada would control Montana, Idaho, Washigton, Oregon and everything else west of the Mississippi and treat the Native Americans the same way. Neither Mexico nor Canada would care to establish an independent Native American state.

  Twenty years later, Canada, Mexico and the rest of the Americas would cut off all US shipping through the Panama Canal, threaten to attack the rump state of the United States again, promise to drive the US people into the sea, and mobilize forces to do so. The Native Americans would join in. The US people launch a preemptive attack and win again, having wrestled territory from Canada and Mexico in a war forced upon them.

  Only 5 years later, the US people would be attacked again on Thanksgiving. After initial setbacks, they would win again.

  Hoping to establish peace, the US people would remove themselves entirely from Arizona. In response, continuing to refuse to recognize the United States, the Native Americans in Arizona would promise to destroy the country, refuse to negotiate, and continously launch missiles into southern California. Having no choice, the US attacks Arizona to stop the missiles.

  This is the true analogy. Mr. Kamiya's attempt at an anaolgy is paltry and unfairly simplistic in comparison.

  —McFarland Read McFarland's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel