Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Proposal on Embassy Locations
128 countries have decided that they have every right to tell another nation what can and cannot be its capital city. Each of these countries marked in green has said that Jerusalem is not Israel’s capital city and that agreeing with Israel that it is should be punished.
Let us extend the principle. If one nation can tell another nation what its capital is, then it follows that the United States can declare for those nations where their capitals are. Instead of having to put our embassies close to their governments and where they think their capitals are, we can put our embassies in places convenient for us.
- Oh, look, the United Kingdom has endorsed this principle. So, we can move our embassy to their new capital, according to us, of Brighton. Less traffic, fewer people, lower real estate prices, and it’s a nice seaside town.
- Who else do we have? Japan? New capital on the island of Iwo Jima, perhaps?
- Zimbabwe? Nobody wants to actually be in Zimbabwe. Let’s move their capital to somewhere more convenient, like Newark, New Jersey. Nobody wants to be there, either, but it’s much more convenient than Harare.
- The Principality of Andorra? Wait, we don’t have an embassy or other mission in Andorra. Well, that’s okay. We’ll move the capitals of both Spain and France there, and then we will have an embassy there.
If they complain, we just say, “But in the UN, you said…”
Published in Humor
I like your idea for Zimbabwe, but for that to work Zimbabwe would have to pretend that Newark fell within Zimbabwe’s borders, and the rest of the world would need to accept those borders. Which would be defined, now that I think of it.
Might be a ‘good thing’ for the rest of the US, but what would the worthy denizens of Newark think of this, I wonder?
We really don’t care, do we? Have you ever been to Newark?
No, Zimbabwe’s opinion does not matter in this case. The rest of the world’s opinion does not matter, either. That’s why this overturning of the old Westphalian system of statehood will lead to chaos.
There is also the flip side; they also voted that they have the right to tell us where to put our embassy. So, I don’t think there embassies should be in our capitol city, they should be somewhere less controversial. Like say, Wichita.
No, all of US territory is too controversial. After all, Native Americans once claimed it all. Just like with Australia, these 128 countries cannot have an embassy to the United States of America.
Well then… if we’re bringing ours from Zimbabwe to Newark, I guess there’s some space available there.
It’s about accepted borders.
The issue is that certain people will accept Israel as having no borders. Here are my accepted borders:
Remember when we were only $14 trillion in debt? Not that hard, it was just a few years ago.
Isn’t the problem that people don’t accept that Palestine has borders, and that these borders include East Jerusalem?
New plan: Israel’s capitol is the Earth itself and all of the Earth has to accept Jews.
Reminds me of a scene from RAH’s Starship Troopers following the death of the old company commander in which the troopers want to change the name of the unit to fit the new company commander. It went something like:
How many are in favor of this?
It’s unanimous.
So, One hundred thirty-eight ayes, and one no. The noes have it.
Nope. The issue is that for the majority of Arabs, Israel has no right to exist. Do you know who the Palestinians were before 1948? Jews. Do you know what the people who are now called Palestinians were called? Arabs. Do you know where Arabs come from? Hint, it’s not Israel. Have you any notion of the history and how many people lived in the Holy Land when the Jews started coming back and making the desert bloom? Damnall, that’s how many. It was a low-population backwater. Now, there are millions and millions of people claiming to be Palestinians, and before 1948 their families were just Arabs, like everywhere else in the MiddleEast. There should be no separate state called Palestine. They lost the war. Not once, but several times. Time for the Carthage treatment. Is there a Novgorod Republic today? Is there a Venetian Republic today? No. Losing wars should matter.
But there are still Venetians, right?
The Italians didn’t drive them out and take their homes.
At the expense of the Palestinians. Why does it have a right to exist at somebody else’s expense?
Well those particular Arabs came from Palestine : – )
Hence the conflict.
That’s what I keep hearing, but I’ve never seen it proved (random quotes from noted population scientist Mark Twain are not convicing) or even why it’s relevant.
In 1946 what proportion of the population between the river and the sea was Palestinian Arab?
How about in 1936?
1926?
1900?
1850?
I don’t see why not. There are states called Libya and Jordan and Iraq – all of which were established without displacing the native population – why not a state called Palestine?
It’s hard to say that it hasn’t mattered to the Palestinians, Arahant. But winning or losing wars does not win or lose a moral argument.
I’m opposed to Zionism because I believe that it’s immoral – the way that Apartheid in South Africa was immoral, and that colonialism was immoral. That’s why so many countries voted against accepting the outcome as a simple fait accompli, which is what recognising united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is really about. (Borders.)
Winning or losing wars doesn’t address that moral question – and if you are reduced to basically arguing that might is right (losing wars, etc) then it seems like an admission that the moral argument is lost, or doesn’t work for you to get what you want.
Which seems like an odd position for a conservative to find themselves in?
Wattaya got against Wichita Judge?
The important point is what they have against it, mainly that it’s not Washington or New York City.
I drove by Wichita once. I could have driven in, but it was after 6 PM on a Saturday, so I figured it was closed.
I don’t know what Zionism is, so for the moment I’m going to assume that you mean the Jews building a nation in the area known as Palestine. They do have their own historical claim to the territory, even though they had been displaced for centuries by martial conquest (losing wars).
But I don’t see colonialism as a moral evil, unless it includes enslavement. Nation building is not the same thing as raiding and pillaging; it is a productive enterprise. The currently-occupying peoples do have a right to oppose the colonies (defend their territory), but the more vigorous, productive, and fecund group will ultimately come to prevail. An interesting counter-example might be seen in Europe, where more than a few nations seem to have chosen to passively acquiesce and even encourage the colonies being planted within their own territories.
It only closes at 6 on school nights.
Speaking as a man coming from a long line of pillaging raiders, I’m really failing to see the issue here. We took Normandy and built it into something more than it was. A few generations later, we took England and did the same. Then we took over Scotland through intermarriage, and made it better than it had been. Pillaging and raiding does plenty to change things for the better when one just stays and conquers, and I wish we would do more of it.
Quit bustin’ on Wichita or ol’ Glenn will come back to haunt you.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. I see pillaging and raiding as theft (grab the goods and leave), while taking a territory and making it more than it was is a productive work.
When I was young, I thought that was a football song. I knew what a football lineman was, but didn’t know what an electrical lineman was. Hey, I was only four. What can I say?
One of my older female relatives started a genealogical letter with: “If a man steals a loaf of bread, we call him a thief. But if he steals a kingdom, we call him the Conqueror…”
Dream big. That’s all I’m saying and my blood is singing. What good is stealing something if you don’t make it better and put it to productive use?
(Besides, if I have to suffer the penalties of Viking heritage, I’ll have the good parts, too.)
Actually, it sorta does.
Ah, so the Tennessee Valley Authority hadn’t gotten to you yet? ;)
I was nowhere near Tennessee. We had Uncommonly Wealthy Edison where I grew up. (I think that was their name.) Bill Ayers’ dad used to run it.
And to the 35 countries that abstained, I say grow a spine.
How about for a conservative Viking?
The Palestinians do not want Isreal to exist. Isreal is about 50 miles x 100 miles, very tiny. The other arab states do not want the Palestinians either. Philistines are not Palestinians.