Or the Hindus. Or the Buddhists. Or the Zoroastrians.
Anyone but who’s living there now. If the Jews & the Palestinians can’t learn to share, NEITHER of them should get to keep it.
Who agrees with me?
Let’s have it administered impartially by the Vatican…
Mom!! That’s not fair!!
He started it!!
The US should have renamed New Jersey to Israel and settled the Jews there. Would have solved a lot of problems.
Yeah, that’s exactly my point. If both sides keep acting like spoiled children, they should be treated like spoiled children. I know the Palestinians have a lot of legitimate grievances, but nobody’s gonna listen to them if all they do is hold their breath until they turn blue.
Didn’t the Jews originally want a homeland somewhere in America?
Not sure, but it would have made a lot more sense then sticking Israel in the middle of the Arab countries. The historical reasons to do so don’t mean much to me, as about 50 different religious groups claim the same miserable patch of land.
Who is “we” exactly? And what right would “we” have to do this?
I have often advocated for giving jerusalem to the buddhists (mormons and catholics wouldnt work because they have a connection with the city).
My understanding is that one of the main reasons israel is where it is instead of africa or south america is because there is nowhere else in the world that had so m7ch emotional rssonance that jews from around the world would flock there to create a jewish nation.
So rather than have a small but relatively conflict free jewish state in south america or africa that has about as much meaning to jews at liberia has to american blacks, the zionists opted for the current lication and hoped the arabs would see things their way.
I’m sure as hell not going to walk into Israel and tell them to move. People who do that have a way of getting hurt.
Yes, clearly what the Middle East needs is another faction claiming Israel/Palestine/“the Holy Land”.
Umm … no.
You think a “jewish state” in Uganda, which has been far more blood soaked than the Levant would have been “conflict free”?
Why?
“We” = the rest of the world. And “we” have the tanks and the bombs and the giant robots. Okay, maybe not giant robots…at least, not yet.
No, the point is to give the land to a group of people who have NO religious connection, so they can bulldoze everything and build resort hotels and waterparks and stuff.
Those silly Jews, insisting on putting Israel where Israel is.
Right! The World Community–like, the U.N. or something–will just come up with some kind of new plan for how the area should be divvied up. After all, if the World Community were to come up with such a plan, the people who actually live there would all obviously have to accept it. No way could that go wrong.
Bulldoze it all westward. Make the eastern shore of the Mediterranean the present east bank of the Jordan. Then farm tuna there. Sell the tuna to Japan.
Cry more.
I disagree with you, and I feel pretty confident that no other person will seriously agree with you.
Why would Buddhists want it, then? Maybe Tibetan refugees? but there’s probably a bunch of places they’d rather live before they’d move to the Middle East.
I was under the impression that the Uganda option was with the blessing of the natives. I see this was not the case.
For the record, I’d be OK with mass immigration of Israeli citizens to any state they choose. If Utah can be 60% Mormon, I see no reason why Connecticut shouldn’t be 60% Jewish. Heck if they picked Wyoming, they could be 95% Jewish.
Gotta live in the present.