Moving Israel to Europe

December 8, 2005 1:04 PM

Iran's President wants Israel to move to Europe. In what part of Europe would Israel fit?
posted by dov3 (63 comments total)

Won't make any difference since Europe will be Islamist in a few decades anyway.
posted by HTuttle at 1:06 PM on December 8, 2005

All crazy rulers of middle eastern countries look vaguely like my Dad. Except for Bashir Assad.
posted by selfnoise at 1:08 PM on December 8, 2005

He denied the Holocaust in the same speech.
Nice.
posted by caddis at 1:12 PM on December 8, 2005

HTuttle, Well, if Europe will be Islamist in a few decades then lt's move Israel to South America
posted by dov3 at 1:14 PM on December 8, 2005

I meant "let's move..."
posted by dov3 at 1:15 PM on December 8, 2005

Can't move Israel to South America, it is full of Nazis!
posted by shoepal at 1:16 PM on December 8, 2005

Darn shoepal, I did not think about it. I guess then is Australia or Africa.
posted by dov3 at 1:19 PM on December 8, 2005

I say we ask for a trade. Move Israel to Germany, but only if Iran moves to Siberia.
posted by loquax at 1:22 PM on December 8, 2005

Wasn't Alaska proposed once? They still have a lot of room up there.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 1:31 PM on December 8, 2005

Why not move Israel to IRAN? Iran is muslim--a problem, perhaps,--but it is not ARAB, and thus the Arabs will not have Israel , that tiny little nation, to have in their face. Then they can turn their attention to their internal problems and enemies instead. If Iran worries so much about the Palestinians and other Arabs, this is how they can show how thoughtful they are.
posted by Postroad at 1:35 PM on December 8, 2005

Wasn't Alaska proposed once? They still have a lot of room up there.

I know Uganda was.
posted by MasonDixon at 1:36 PM on December 8, 2005

Ahmadinejad is so comically inflammatory that I half suspect his surprising election victory was engineered by the USA, to facilitate the forthcoming invasion.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 1:46 PM on December 8, 2005

Actualy, there is a Jewish psudo-nation up in russia near china. Obviously the soviets couldn't let there be a jewish autonomus state gap during the cold war.
posted by delmoi at 1:48 PM on December 8, 2005

I'd love to call his diatribe childish and ignorant, but somehow, someway, Bush will pull off the same stunt and I'll get pie in the face.
posted by Atreides at 1:56 PM on December 8, 2005

There's plenty of space left in the United States. We can always kick the indians off of their reservations to make room.
posted by Jart at 1:56 PM on December 8, 2005

Perhaps they should all go live


(I heard some of their neighbors have even offered to drive them there!)
posted by gigawhat? at 2:00 PM on December 8, 2005

Give them Montana. Plenty of empty silos that they can put their nukes in.
posted by unixrat at 2:00 PM on December 8, 2005

Wasn't Alaska proposed once? They still have a lot of room up there.

I know Uganda was.

The Nazis liked Madagascar at one point.

Actualy, there is a Jewish psudo-nation up in russia near china. Obviously the soviets couldn't let there be a jewish autonomus state gap during the cold war.

Predated the cold war.
posted by kickingtheground at 2:02 PM on December 8, 2005

I'm with Jart. Let's give the Israelis a chunk of N Dakota and let them "make the desert bloom". At least the billions in US subsidies would be more likely to be spent on productive endeavors over building fences and sending missles into apartment buildings.
posted by infowar at 2:03 PM on December 8, 2005

Damn, that dude sounds like the people who accosted me at Union Square in Manhattan last weekend.

You know your cause is awesome when you're on the same page as the crazy president of Iran.
posted by swerdloff at 2:04 PM on December 8, 2005

Cyprus might work. They'll probably end up there anyway, the way things are going.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:04 PM on December 8, 2005

bart of bartcop sez he can't understand why Israelis are so attached to their asscrack of a country. For the amount of capital they've put into it, they could have made another Utah in (his eg.) Oklahoma.

Israel's the size of New Jersey, but that's counting the Negev Desert.

They've got 2000km² of irrigated land... 500,000 acres ... good land is going for what, $5,000/acre so for $2.5B we could buy up enough farmland to feed the new relocated Israeli nation here in the states, which, oddly enough, is just about how much cash aid we're giving to Israel every year...
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:12 PM on December 8, 2005

It's where the temple is and all of Jewish heritage started. So much Jewish history is there. As you can see from the current state of the Temple Mount and subsequent conquest and planting of the Dome of the Rock, there's a historical move afoot to destroy any indication that the Jews were ever there. See also the Cave of the Patriarchs.

There is a belief, and I don't think it's an unreasonable one, that if the Jews are removed, the entire archaeological history of the Jews in Israel will be destroyed and supplanted with suggestions that it was a Muslim area all along. There's an attempt to kill the narrative that is "the Jews" in that.

This says nothing of the spiritual link to the patrimonial land that many Jews feel to Israel. It's a battle that's been fought for 3,000 years.

Yes, the Jews were not in Israel for a very long time between various bootings by various conquerers, but it's been the prayer for years to go back. Next Year in Jerusalem.

But then, this is a question I've asked and it regularly gets ignored - if the Palestinians get the Right of Return, presumably the Jews chased out of Iran, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Russia, and everywhere else do too, right? I mean, except the ones that were slaughtered in real live (not like Jenin) genocides and pogroms?
posted by swerdloff at 2:26 PM on December 8, 2005

I say we move Israel to the greater West Palm Beach area. We've already got a big head start, after all.
posted by Justinian at 2:32 PM on December 8, 2005

if the Palestinians get the Right of Return, presumably the Jews chased out of Iran, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Russia, and everywhere else do too, right?

sure, one big happy home-coming party for everyone.

snark aside, the Kuwaiti emirate held onto its nationhood by craftily currying support from stronger imperial powers, the Turks, Brits, and most recently the US.

I'm a strong believer that a nation is entitled to the lands it can defend against all comers, no less and no more. (As an American born in a town called "Sacramento" and having lived in "El Cerrito", "Salinas", "Fresno", "Los Angeles", and "Santa Cruz" how could I not hold this position???).

If Israel can keep its lands, more power to them. It's up to them how they do it, and up to the US how much we support them with this.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:51 PM on December 8, 2005

How fitting: on my shitty dialup, when I clicked the main link I got the message "www.themoderatevoice.com could not be found"...
posted by Meatbomb at 2:59 PM on December 8, 2005

No, no, no.

Israel gets Quebec. France gets the displaced Quebecois. Texas cedes the union and Florida joins it. Iraq moves to Israel, the US Administration moves to Iraq, and Taiwan takes that little unwanted nubby piece of Australia.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:19 PM on December 8, 2005

I have a vague memory that at the time of Israel's formation, one of the potential locations was a section in Turkey, and that that area was not as "contested" shall we say, as the current location.

I have no idea where I got this idea. Anyone else know?

^{(Turkey isn't part of the EU yet, but is working hard at changing that :-)}
posted by -harlequin- at 3:29 PM on December 8, 2005

^{The "current location" being, y'know, the heart of the holy lands, the one area on earth that has never stopped changing hands every hundred years or so for thousands of years. Ouch :-(}
posted by -harlequin- at 3:32 PM on December 8, 2005

I'm not going near the I/P debate, but I am compelled to say that Protocols of the Elders of Awesome is a fantastic username.
posted by languagehat at 3:38 PM on December 8, 2005

Reminds me of a Mondo Cane-like film I saw on SNL decades ago, a newsreel item in which Israel switched places with, I think, Georgia USA. One got security, the other got heat without humidity.
posted by QuietDesperation at 3:38 PM on December 8, 2005

Somehow the Jews found the only piece of the middle east without oil.
posted by Richard Daly at 3:46 PM on December 8, 2005

England’s green and pleasant land?
posted by thirteen at 4:01 PM on December 8, 2005

Utah gets my vote. Mormons have no real claim there anyway. :-)
posted by nofundy at 4:09 PM on December 8, 2005

"Israel, give me all your young, your rich, your healthy and handsome, your dj's and your clubbers, your love paraders and your trance chillouters, your bohemians and your rockers, the partying masses on your teeming shores, send them all to me!"

There's a statue in Ibiza with that inscription.
posted by funambulist at 4:11 PM on December 8, 2005

What's Ahmadinejad's game? Why be so inflammatory?
posted by mr_roboto at 4:32 PM on December 8, 2005

i think the VHEM have the best answer.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:41 PM on December 8, 2005

In what part of Europe would Israel fit?

Bavaria. Since most are from Germany originally, I think it's only fitting they get the nicest tracts of land in the country.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:04 PM on December 8, 2005

Ahmadinejad's just out to prove that every country has ignorant rednecks.
posted by clevershark at 5:19 PM on December 8, 2005

...or that many countries have rabid religion-addled nutcases for Presidents...
posted by clevershark at 5:20 PM on December 8, 2005

Is this the same time as David Duke's speech there?

(if it had to be moved--but it won't be--i'd take a large chunk of Germany--say, from Munich up to Berlin.)
posted by amberglow at 5:31 PM on December 8, 2005

Locating Israel in Uganda might have been even more sadly amusing and tragic than its current location. I mean, look how Rhodesia turned out.

When I consider the current choice of location for Israel, I often remember the words of Ronald Storrs (British pro-consul of Jerusalem during WW1 and its aftermath) regarding a key aspect of erecting Israel in the Middle East: such a creation would be a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.

Storrs later went on to be governer of Northern Rhodesia. That turned out nicely as well.
posted by meehawl at 5:33 PM on December 8, 2005

Israel is just fine where it is. However, they could use some more space. I propose we move the Iranians to Antarctica and let Israel expand into Iran. Unfortunately, Syria and Iraq appear to be in between so they will have to move to Antarctica as well.

Makes as much sense to me.
posted by caddis at 5:43 PM on December 8, 2005

Personally, I think they should move the entirety of Israel to Rome and its suburbs, while keeping the Vatican City right where it is.

Just seems kinda fitting, really...
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:22 PM on December 8, 2005

No, Rome should move to Israel as well so that Christianity, Judaism and Islam can all share in the Holy Lands in peace and harmony. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all mankind.
posted by caddis at 6:31 PM on December 8, 2005

Yup--Rome totally should. And while we're at it, move Mecca there. (it would be Thunderdome) ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:40 PM on December 8, 2005

Three religions enter, one religion leaves!
posted by Justinian at 7:31 PM on December 8, 2005

I love the idea of moving Israel! But obviously not just the people. You need to move all the buildings, dirt, rocks, mountians, deserts, etc. too. Or if you wan't to be cheap about it, you could just move Jerusalem'd old city and holy places to Montana.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:06 PM on December 8, 2005

Yes, why not just move all the world's holy sites to Montana. Montana is already known for being good at that sort of thing.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:08 PM on December 8, 2005

Isreal should move to Europe at the same time Iran moves out of Iraq
posted by whiteoak at 8:28 PM on December 8, 2005

?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:56 PM on December 8, 2005

Nevada would make more sense than Montana or Utah. 85% of the state is already owned by the federal government anyways so nobody's gonna get pissed off about losing land.

Plus, couldn't casino mogols (and Jews) Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson just build the Jews a mega-resort with all the trappings of Jerusalem, only with more shopping and slots??
posted by b_thinky at 11:15 PM on December 8, 2005

Chomsky half seriously suggested moving all the Palestinians to America. They'd honestly prefer living here to living in their homeland under apartheid.
posted by Devils Slide at 12:12 AM on December 9, 2005

Hey, we could move the PA *and* the Israelis to Nevada. That way they could work out their differences without 3rd parties like the Saudis and Syrians exerting undue influences...
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:29 AM on December 9, 2005

Yes, yes, lets move the Palestinians to Utah! Its cheaper than moving buildings and Utah needs some balance. Anyway, Chomsky is right, the Palestinians probably would be happier in the U.S.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:53 AM on December 9, 2005

You are all fools. Any good risk player knows you start with australia.
posted by srboisvert at 3:27 AM on December 9, 2005

No way. You can never hold on to the purples. Irkutsk, man, it's all about Irkutsk.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 7:43 AM on December 9, 2005

No, no, no, You take Australia and then you just...wait. Watch everyone else smack each other around trying to keep someone from holding a whole continent while you slowly build your kangaroo armies, then by the time Asia realizes it's been bleeding itself dry hopping over to Alaska every other turn, you hop forth to victory! (or at least a good bit of friendly chaos.)
posted by Cyrano at 9:10 AM on December 9, 2005

See, the last three posters truly understand geopolitics. Sure, invading Iraq seems like a bad idea now, but Bush had 5 RISK cards, was he supposed to just sit on them?
posted by Scoo at 9:48 AM on December 9, 2005

No way he had five unless Clinton and Bush Sr. passed them on to him.

Bush Sr:
-Panama
-Kuwait

Clinton:
-Haiti
-Kosovo

Bush Jr.
-Afghanistan

Makes sense, as Reagan probably cashed in all of his cards before 1988.
posted by loquax at 11:07 AM on December 9, 2005

then by the time Asia realizes it's been bleeding itself dry hopping over to Alaska every other turn

No, no. Everyone goes after Australia first, but if you're dealing with good players they'll simply start amassing an army to hold you to one continent. Eventually you have one giant duke-'em-out fest with the Australia-holder trying valiantly to hold out 150 invaders out with 40.

The best country to grab is America, for the reson you point out. You get more armies per turn (6 IIRC) and there's only 3 points of entry. Make a treaty with one border and you only have to defend 2 points strongly. Slowly scatter 5 to 10 armies in each territory, then when your "partner" least suspects it, throw them all on the "friendly" border territory leaving 1 holding army in each to hold the middle. They'll never see it coming. Asia has way too many points of entry; you can't ever hold on to it long enough to amass any armies.

The power of Asia comes when you've at the end and some Australian asshat is holding out with 50 armies on the border. Just wait a few turns and you'll easily overpower him.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:35 AM on December 9, 2005

Sorry. /risk nerd
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:36 AM on December 9, 2005

That's the same president who, in October, called for Isreal to be "wiped off the map", right?
And now he says "never mind, just move them to all to Europe"?

Looks to me like the guy's actually making some progress. Just give him some time and maybe he'll come around to "aaallright, they can stay where they are if they promise not to nuke us."
posted by sour cream at 1:29 PM on December 9, 2005