So if a bunch of kurds moved to your country (in part because they were subject to a lot of persecution in their coutry of origin) and then declare a large swath of your country a Kurdish country. You think the problem is that the people that lived in the country are too hostile and can’t control their anger?
The cross?
Really?
What a charming choice of phrase.
My relatives fled Poland, Hungary, Germany and probably a few other places because they were discriminated against solely for being Jewish. As far as I know some went to Israel but most went to America. I’m a little sick and tired of the world blithely telling Jews just where the fuck we get to live. Would anyone seriously entertain this kind of notion for anyone else? I live in NJ which is roughly the size of Israel so I know how tiny the place is. It’s really small but it’s still not small enough for a big chunk of the world. Hell the fucking Germans are holding
pro-Hamas rallies
I’m a secular Jew who absolutely despises the Haredim and their damned allies. I married a non-Jew. I feel sorry for the Palestinians. But I swear it is threads like this one that make me sympathize with Israelis a hundred times over. Jews are living in the ME. The world needs to get the fuck over it and move on.
Nice example. Except for one thing:
Can you explain which “country” the Jews moved into and took a large swath of? And exactly how either the British Mandate territories or the Ottoman Empire can be called “your country” for the Arabs in the area (note: not Palestinians, since at the time they didn’t call themselves that and rejected the appellation)? Did they control “their country”? What was “their country”'s currency? Laws? Government? Anthem? Flag? Can you supply that information?
Like being “secular Jews” and despising the religious Jews saved German Jews from being exterminated.
What an appropriate choice of phrases.
Isn’t it awful the way they won’t behave like good Christians?
If all that stuff happened back in 1945, then yes, “anger” is not a good enough reason. There are dozens of countries whose borders are different as a result of WWII and we could complain about every single one of them if we had nothing better to do.
Oh, clearly. I mean, “All right, we’ve all had a talk and we’re moving your country over here. Kindly pack the fuck up, your boat leaves in 15.” is not anywhere within the realms of Ever Happening. Nor should it.
They do ?! First I’ve heard of it.
Would be a right mess if we let any and all Quebecois come back, with their funny talkin’ and the public displays of poutine and such… :). I suspect there’s a path to citizenship and such, maybe it’s easier, but I strongly doubt it’s an automatic green stamp as I understand Israel’s RoR works.
Plus the genealogy is probably easier to ascertain over a few centuries w/ extensive historical records than it is over millenia helped only with The Bible 
There are a few problems, moving large landmasses is not as easy as Bugs Bunny makes it look.
[ol]
[li]We need some rather large saws in order to get the country detached from the neighboring countries so we can move it.[/li][li]Quite a lot of large outboard motors so we can actually move it.[/li][li]If you are suggesting moving Israel outside the Mediterranean, we would have a problem passing through the Strait of Gibraltar. Since the strait is only 14.3km wide and Israel is much wider, it simply won’t fit. Nor will you be able to sail it through the Suez Canal, since that is even narrower.[/li][li]We might consider temporarily moving Sinai northwest and moving Israel through the Red Sea (would be a tight fit), but Bab-el-Mandeb would present another problem, we would have to move Yemen as well.[/li][/ol]
All in all, I would say that your “moving Israel”-project would be quite expensive.
Maybe we could train swallows and airlift it out?
How about shoving Gibraltar aside, at least temporarily?
Also, can we stretch out Israel like a rubber band to fit through the narrow places?
Israel has around 8 million people, nuclear weapons and one of the most experienced militaries in the world.
Evicting Israel by force doesn’t sound like a piece of cake.
The answer, of course, is that Israel won’t stay where it is. In 100 million years it certainly won’t be where it is today. Give it some time and it will move all on it’s own, and all these problems will not even be remembered. 
Suppose we just installed a bunch of hot air balloons and flew it over the strait?
I dunno, a lot of the old folks might get airsick. On the other hand, many of those same people would like a leisurely cruise.
Pixar movie, Up?
Phasers, tractor beams and a big ass transporter. Throw in a giant holodeck and they’ll never know they were moved.
Getting back to the OP’s original question:
-
Where in Canada or the US would you find vacant land suitable for settlement of ~ 8,000,000 Israelis? It’s been over a century since the US frontier closed, because all the available land had been taken up; Canada’s settlement pattern was similar, with available land largely claimed by WWI. Just because western lands have low population densities does not mean that those lands can easily support 8,000,000 more people.
-
Those population-sparse areas nonetheless have people living on them, who own the land. If you want to re-settle 8,000,000 Israelis, what are you going to do with all the Americans and Canadians who live and own those lands? Forcibly re-locate all of them, too? Buy them all out? Who’s going to pay for that? And what about the First Nations / American Indian populations who have aboriginal title to those lands, preceding the settlers’ claims? In Canada, their rights are protected by the Constitution; how are you going to extinguish their rights to make room for the Israelis?
-
Finally, and to my mind the most important objection to the OP: Israel isn’t just about land-ownership. It is a sovereign Jewish state, the only one in the world, expressly designed to give Jewish people the security of having their own state: one where they won’t be in the perpetual minority and subject to religious/ethnic oppression, as had been their long experience in European and Middle Eastern countries. Just re-locating them to Canada or the US does not satisfy that objective, unless Canada and the US are willing to cede sovereignty over the area of settlement to allow the creation of “Western Israel.” That’s not going to happen.
And, none of the OP’s question addresses the Jewish attachment specifically to the land of Israel, not just a tract of land somewhere in the world.
There’s government-owned national park space. Yellowstone National Park is nearly 9,000 square kilometers.
99% of the people in that land not Jewish in 1900. 95% of the people there were not Jewish in 1920. About a third of the people there were Jewish by 1948 and the vast majority of them were immigrants. Then they declared a Jewish state in a land that was populated by non-Jewish people. I don’t see how your technical quibbling overcomes those facts?
Plus there’s plenty of places in the US that really don’t have anybody in them. Like the Mojave Desert. C’mon, it can’t be much worse than the Levant, climate-wise. The water sitch is ever so slightly worse, but that’s where Yahweh support comes in.
[QUOTE=Velocity]
Israel has around 8 million people, nuclear weapons and one of the most experienced militaries in the world.
Evicting Israel by force doesn’t sound like a piece of cake.
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick : while Israel very definitely probably does have nukes, AFAIK they don’t have big rockets to strap them onto, no ICBMs. Best they can do is air-truck them, which more or less negates that risk for anyone not their direct neighbour. Even if they did have ICBMs, they don’t have the submarines needed to be assured to be able to launch them in retaliation to a first strike - in short, no MAD for them.
Which means direct, existential threats from the US or Russia (hell, even from France, rah rah who’s the top dog of Europe, force de frappe bitches, etc…) would be very credible.
Y’know, provided any of them were willing to nuke Israel because… something something ? I think I can state with relative confidence that the US, Russia and France would all be willing to give even the total obliteration of the Palestinian people to the last woman & child their utmost attention if there was nothing else on TV at the time ; and would react to it with decisive military action so long as doing so didn’t interfere with any golfing schedules.
So there was no such country then? Then why did you say there was?