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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 114 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hank Rhody, Scourge of Valhalla Contributor
    Hank Rhody, Scourge of Valhalla
    @HankRhody

    To save time for all involved we should move every Muslim nation’s embassy to Malmo, Sweden.

    • #31
  2. Derek Simmons Member
    Derek Simmons
    @

    Hank Rhody, Scourge of Valhalla (View Comment):
    To save time for all involved we should move every Muslim nation’s embassy to Malmo, Sweden.

    Or as it is more correctly now known as Malmo D.I.–District of Islam

    • #32
  3. TG Thatcher
    TG
    @TG

    Zafar (View Comment):
    which is what recognising united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is really about.

    Is that what the US statement said?  That Jerusalem is unitary, and cannot be divided?

    • #33
  4. kylez Member
    kylez
    @kylez

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    It’s about accepted borders.

    The issue is that certain people will accept Israel as having no borders. Here are my accepted borders

    Isn’t the problem that people don’t accept that Palestine has borders, and that these borders include East Jerusalem?

    Palestine doesn’t have borders because Palestine doesn’t exist.

    • #34
  5. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Why does South Korea vote against the USA on this? What is their involvement in the Middle East? I say the USA declare Busan   

    the capital of South Korea. It’s right on the ocean…lovely. Besides, Seoul is indefensible. We have 25ooo troops “defending” that city. Actually our troops are but canaries in that coal mine. This world in which we live is crazy and our leaders have allowed it to be crazy for far too many years. Another win for President Trump…that is what this is.

    • #35
  6. Roberto the Weary Inactive
    Roberto the Weary
    @Roberto

    Here’s some creative thinking I can endorse.

    • #36
  7. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Arahant: 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.

    I was with you until this point. Brighton is full of leftist SJWs who would just make trouble protesting at our embassy. They favored Remain about 70/30. I suggest the Isle of Wight instead, just a bit west of Brighton. Consider the following advantages:

    • It’s still a nice seaside location.
    • You have to take the ferry to get to the mainland, thereby limiting the mischief our diplomats could cause in London.
    • The Isle of Wight voted for Brexit by about 60/40.
    • #37
  8. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Arahant: 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.

    I was with you until this point. Brighton is full of leftist SJWs who would just make trouble protesting at our embassy. They favored Remain about 70/30. I suggest the Isle of Wight instead, just a bit west of Brighton. Consider the following advantages:

    • It’s still a nice seaside location.
    • You have to take the ferry to get to the mainland, thereby limiting the mischief our diplomats could cause in London.
    • The Isle of Wight voted for Brexit by about 60/40.

    Plus the fact that it’s Isle of White.  It’ll make the left crazy.

    • #38
  9. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Zafar (View Comment):
    The Italians didn’t drive them out and take their homes.

    The way I understand it, many Palestinian Arabs voluntarily left their homes, expecting to reclaim them when the Arabs won the war.  It didn’t quite work out.

    • #39
  10. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):
    Quit bustin’ on Wichita or ol’ Glenn will come back to haunt you.

    I hated that song.

    • #40
  11. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Which seems like an odd position for a conservative to find themselves in?

    How about for a conservative Viking?

    Good thing that guy’s sinister.

    • #41
  12. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    TG (View Comment):
    Is that what the US statement said? That Jerusalem is unitary, and cannot be divided?

    That’s not what Nicky Haley said.

    • #42
  13. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Which seems like an odd position for a conservative to find themselves in?

    How about for a conservative Viking?

    Good thing that guy’s sinister.

    I was thinking kind of hot.

    • #43
  14. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    The Italians didn’t drive them out and take their homes.

    The way I understand it, many Palestinian Arabs voluntarily left their homes, expecting to reclaim them when the Arabs won the war. It didn’t quite work out.

    Non sequiter.

    • #44
  15. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Which seems like an odd position for a conservative to find themselves in?

    How about for a conservative Viking?

    Good thing that guy’s sinister.

    I was thinking kind of hot.

    The “sinister” was for Arahant’s benefit.  I meant left-handed.

    • #45
  16. TG Thatcher
    TG
    @TG

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    TG (View Comment):
    Is that what the US statement said? That Jerusalem is unitary, and cannot be divided?

    That’s not what Nicky Haley said.

    From the 6 December statement by President Trump:  “We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem …”

    That doesn’t read, to me like a stance that Jerusalem cannot be divided between Israel and an Arab Palestinian state.  It appears to be leaving the door open to some sort of partition.

    • #46
  17. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    drlorentz (View Comment):
    I suggest the Isle of Wight instead, just a bit west of Brighton. Consider the following advantages:

    • It’s still a nice seaside location.
    • You have to take the ferry to get to the mainland, thereby limiting the mischief our diplomats could cause in London.
    • The Isle of Wight voted for Brexit by about 60/40.

    Okay. I’m with you.

    • #47
  18. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I was thinking kind of hot.

    Zafar, my friend, no matter how much we disagree, including on what sex is hot, I love you, man. You just gave me a great laugh.

    • #48
  19. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Randy Webster (View Comment):
    The “sinister” was for Arahant’s benefit. I meant left-handed.

    Well, he is now.

    • #49
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Major Major Major Major (View Comment):
     

    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.

    So is breaking and entering in that case, so long as one watches the television one stole.

    • #50
  21. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    The Italians didn’t drive them out and take their homes.

    The way I understand it, many Palestinian Arabs voluntarily left their homes, expecting to reclaim them when the Arabs won the war. It didn’t quite work out.

    Non sequiter.

    No, it’s really not.

     

    • #51
  22. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    No, it’s really not.

    I didn’t think so, either.

    • #52
  23. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    The Italians didn’t drive them out and take their homes.

    The way I understand it, many Palestinian Arabs voluntarily left their homes, expecting to reclaim them when the Arabs won the war. It didn’t quite work out.

    Non sequiter.

    No, it’s really not.

    According to the American Friends Service Committee:

    Palestinian refugees’ right to return to the homes from which they were displaced is well established in international law. The first source of support for Palestinian refugees’ claims to a right of return is U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) Of December 1948, paragraph 11, in which the U.N. General Assembly,

    “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible;

    Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation…”

    Since 1949, this resolution together with UNSC Res. 242 and 338 have been regularly reaffirmed by the U.N. General Assembly.

    The rights outlined in this resolution are firmly grounded in international humanitarian, human rights, and refugee law. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) Executive Conclusion No. 40, “…the basic rights of persons to return voluntarily to their country of origin is reaffirmed and it is urged that international cooperation be aimed at achieving this solution.”[xi]  UNHCR’s support for the right of return is based on the idea that the right of return is a recognized customary norm of international law which is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Fourth Geneva Convention.[xii]

    Helpfully:

    A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence.

    • #53
  24. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    The Italians didn’t drive them out and take their homes.

    The way I understand it, many Palestinian Arabs voluntarily left their homes, expecting to reclaim them when the Arabs won the war. It didn’t quite work out.

    Non sequiter.

    No, it’s really not.

    According to the American Friends Service Committee:

    Palestinian refugees’ right to return to the homes from which they were displaced is well established in international law. The first source of support for Palestinian refugees’ claims to a right of return is U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) Of December 1948, paragraph 11, in which the U.N. General Assembly,

    “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible;

    Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation…”

    Since 1949, this resolution together with UNSC Res. 242 and 338 have been regularly reaffirmed by the U.N. General Assembly.

    The rights outlined in this resolution are firmly grounded in international humanitarian, human rights, and refugee law. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) Executive Conclusion No. 40, “…the basic rights of persons to return voluntarily to their country of origin is reaffirmed and it is urged that international cooperation be aimed at achieving this solution.”[xi] UNHCR’s support for the right of return is based on the idea that the right of return is a recognized customary norm of international law which is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Fourth Geneva Convention.[xii]

    Helpfully:

    A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence.

    It’s probably not very important to you, but the “Right of Return” would destroy Israel.  Maybe they should compensate those Palestinians who lost property.  Maybe they have.

    • #54
  25. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

     

    It’s probably not very important to you, but the “Right of Return” would destroy Israel.

    You’re right.  I don’t have any belief in the right of states to exist, and I have no sympathy for ethno-religious states – be they Israel or Saudi or whatever.  I don’t see this as a morally important argument, and perhaps it isn’t meant as one?

    Imho I, as an individual, have the right to exist and so do you – but wo do not have the right to exist by displacing other people so that we can live in some sort of ethn0-religious majority state – that’s stretching my individual right to exist so that it takes away yours, iow.

    Maybe they should compensate those Palestinians who lost property. Maybe they have.

    I’m pretty sure they haven’t.  I mean they’re still arguing about angels on pinheads wrt someone running away due to fear of violence isn’t a refugee the way someone who was forced away by the barrel of a gun is a refugee.  What next? Only people who’ve lost limbs qualify?

    It doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in their good faith, just saying.

     

    • #55
  26. TG Thatcher
    TG
    @TG

    Zafar (View Comment):
    . I mean they’re still arguing about angels on pinheads wrt someone running away due to fear of violence isn’t a refugee the way someone who was forced away by the barrel of a gun is a refugee. What next? Only people who’ve lost limbs qualify?

    Are you completely certain that the Israeli authorities are making any arguments like this?  What some of us may be chatting about, from a considerable distance, and no actual skin in the game, based on hearsay from other people similarly situated – may not track closely with the real details.

    • #56
  27. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Palestinian refugees’ right to return to the homes from which they were displaced is well established in international law. The first source of support for Palestinian refugees’ claims to a right of return is U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) Of December 1948, paragraph 11, in which the U.N. General Assembly,

    “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors [emphasis added]should be permitted to do so

    Well, I guess that pretty much settles that one then.  Since the “Palestinians” don’t recognize the right of Israel to exist, and they celebrate the murders of Israeli citizens, they clearly don’t wish to live “at peace” with their neighbors, and thus the rest of what you cite does not apply.

    Helpfully:

    A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence.

    Or maybe not so helpful, at least in the way you intend it.  If they were not “forced” to flee, but instead left voluntarily, in order to clear the way for their friends to drive the Israelis into the sea, intending to return as soon as the land had been rendered Judenfrei,  then they don’t fit the definition.

    • #57
  28. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    @miffedwhitemale

    So would you accept proof that individual Palestinians wish to live in peace, and that many Palestinians really were driven or frightened away in 1948 by outfits like the Stern Gang, as meaning that Israel should let this Palestinians return to their homes in Jaffa and Haifa?

    Iow: are your outcomes based on principles, or are your principles selected to suit outcomes?

    • #58
  29. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    TG (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    . I mean they’re still arguing about angels on pinheads wrt someone running away due to fear of violence isn’t a refugee the way someone who was forced away by the barrel of a gun is a refugee. What next? Only people who’ve lost limbs qualify?

    Are you completely certain that the Israeli authorities are making any arguments like this? What some of us may be chatting about, from a considerable distance, and no actual skin in the game, based on hearsay from other people similarly situated – may not track closely with the real details.

    I admit this is a surprising thing to hear from a a citizen of a country that sends Israel almost $4 billion a year.  I would have imagined you’d never more interested in the details.

    Anyway, here is a reasonably constructive paper which I think is quite interesting:

    https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20140305IsraeliPerspectivesPalestinianRefugee.pdf

    • #59
  30. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    It’s probably not very important to you, but the “Right of Return” would destroy Israel.

    You’re right. I don’t have any belief in the right of states to exist, and I have no sympathy for ethno-religious states – be they Israel or Saudi or whatever. I don’t see this as a morally important argument, and perhaps it isn’t meant as one?

    Imho I, as an individual, have the right to exist and so do you – but wo do not have the right to exist by displacing other people so that we can live in some sort of ethn0-religious majority state – that’s stretching my individual right to exist so that it takes away yours, iow.

    Maybe they should compensate those Palestinians who lost property. Maybe they have.

    I’m pretty sure they haven’t. I mean they’re still arguing about angels on pinheads wrt someone running away due to fear of violence isn’t a refugee the way someone who was forced away by the barrel of a gun is a refugee. What next? Only people who’ve lost limbs qualify?

    It doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in their good faith, just saying.

    But the Palestinians have made it clear that there will be no room for “Israelis” (Jews) in any Palestinian State. Or as Mahmoud Abbas- that great man of peace- might put it, there will be no Jews with their “filthy feet” in  Palestine. Is there any other place in the World where the international community would support/demand the creation of a State where a group of people would be completely excluded by reason of  their religion or ethnicity?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.