What country has ever voluntarily said “let’s shut it down” and move elsewhere, where we won’t be an independent country or control our own destiny? The closest analogy I can think of is the Trail of Tears. This must be a joke.

Israel because some Hamas murderers killed Israeli citizens is illogical, improper and unjustified. The right and proper thing to do is to stay in Israel and hunt down the Hamas murderers.

Like in Jordan or Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc...

This is just bouncing ideas around... although I can't speak for the OP

Because Hamas sucks so bad.

The UN and world would support a new Palestine, give in a coastline... enough elbow room...

Problem is... they think Israel is THEIR land... and don't want to leave.

So you end up with 2 parties who see 180 degrees opposite.

It all goes back to 1947/48... should they have drawn different borders?

Maybe they should have founded the Jewish Republic of Germany in East Germany??

Except the Russians would have had a fit...

which would then invite retaliation from Israel, and lead to a war.

That might be a good start.

and there were more Germans that didn't support them or approve of them at all. Because not all Germans were Nazis.

Is it that hard to realize that there are Palestinians that aren't part of and don't support Hamas?

Frankly this approach to Palestinians is gross and I didn't expect it on DU.

And, for the record, Hamas is a terrorist organization and I have no love for them nor do I support them.

But that wasn't -- and couldn't be -- a factor in the overall war plans of the Allies, whose absolutely necessary mission was to defeat Hitler.

I'm not a foreign affairs expert, but I would think a Democratic discussion board would realize that leader of Israel currently wants to be a fascist ruler and is taking steps in that direction. That has to factor into US support. Additionally, I would build a time machine and tell Israel that their policies of taking land and, basically, apartheid probably aren't a smart idea and will likely lead to Palestinian unrest--probably encourage them to handle those decisions differently. As to now, I don't think indiscriminately bombing Palestine is going to be a good thing for anyone. They need to work with actual Palestinians to support them and work for a new governing body to get rid of Hamas.

That's rather a tall order. In wartime Germany, "working to get rid of the Nazis" was a fast one way ticket to the guillotine. I assume you've heard of Die Weisse Rose, right? Their heads did roll. Literally.

My wife's grandfather was admonished by his decades-long neighbor because the neighbor knew he listed to British radio, an offense that carried the death penalty. He didn't turn him in due to their long relationship as good neighbors. After the war, when the tables were turned, the neighbor asked my wife's grandfather not to denounce him to the occupation authorities. Since he had spared her grandfather's life during the war, he agreed. But Germany never would have gotten rid of the Nazis on their own. They were too pervasive. Even during the last few days of the war, fanatic Nazi bands roamed the streets of even the smallest cities, shooting down civilian men of draftable age as "traitors and deserters." Only the invading Allied forces were able to get rid of that kind of a regime.

The people of Eastern Europe were only able to "get rid of" their oppressive socialist regimes once the main financier and military guarantor, the Soviet Union, was slowly collapsing. When East Germany's regime was disintegrating, it only happened after Gorbachev gave his blessing and told the Soviet military to stand down. If there's anyone who thinks Iran is going to order Hamas to stand down, and let the people of Gaza have an election where Iran and Hamas are not participating, I can only say, keep dreaming. However this ultimately plays out, speculating about fairy tales isn't going to end up sparing anyone, sad to say.

have been there for a very long time. Other Arab countries haven't wanted them to settle in those countries. The only way this will ever be settled is if everyone gets off the horse they rode in on and decides to participate in an imperfect solution.

And eye for an eye...

Native people to "Indian Territory" outside of the then US boundaries, the US expanded into that territory and then claimed that land, too.

A more pertinent question, IMO, is, "What nation would willingly give up part of its land to establish a 'new Israel' and how long would that last?" There is anti Semitism in the countries mentioned in the OP - US, Canada, and Australia.

the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are kind of equivalent. They just move in and settle until they've taken over the West Bank.

Native Americans did fight back, which we do not call terrorism as it was not thought of at the time.

The British should have known by then that it does not work just to draw a border - they created African nations that didn't work that well either.

the past regarding Native Americans fighting back, but in personal journals and in official records of the time periods, as well as in newspapers of the old "Wild West," the people on the receiving end of Native raids did speak of being terrorized.

And they called the Native people "savages." Even Thomas Jefferson referred to brutal methods of warfare by the Native people in the Declaration of Independence.

That's not a slur on Native people by me. I have Native ancestry (and colonial ancestry, too). The colonists and western frontier people were just as brutal, and worse in some cases.

I came across some interesting family letters that my husband's aunt had saved. They were correspondence between my husband's great grandmother and a missionary to Indians in the Kansas Territory. The missionary said that the Indians lived by verbal "laws" or social codes of behavior, but the White people who moved into the Kansas Indian Territory were lawless and far more savage in their behavior than any of the Indians that he dealt with. The frontiersmen in Kansas, away from the social norms of the East, without sheriffs and courts to restrain them, lived solely by brute strength, personal desires, and no social values.

But the I/P issues are not the same as the issues between Native Americans and colonists and settlers. If you learn about the history of Palestine, it was the Palestinians who, centuries ago, tried to take over lands from the Jewish descendants of ancient Israel. However, many of those Palestinians also descended from ancient people of the region. So both are indigenous to the land.

Israeli settlers in the West Bank today are indeed colonizing land that, in modern times, is considered Palestinian and outside of Israel's borders. But, Israelis are not outsiders in the region. Descendants of ancient Israel have always lived continuously in Palestine. Their numbers have increased and decreased at various periods in time, according to outside conquests and persecutions. But it has always been a homeland and cultural center for them.

That's why the only solution is a two state one, but Palestinians have always demanded the territory for themselves alone, excluding the right of Israel to exist. And many, though not all, Israelis under Netanyahu are increasingly opposing a two state solution.

Both sides need to recognize and accept the existence of the other in the region, but continuous terrorism attacks and counter fighting keep them polarized.

There is a very informative, but very lengthy Wikipedia article on the history of ancient Israel and its descendants in Palestine from ancient times to the present, under various conquests and rulers.

this is why it is the only country in the world that has to argue it has a "right to exist." The rest of the countries in the world just do. Because they can keep their borders.

If they are attacked by another army, then they may get help on the ground the helping countries want to enforce the idea that no more land grabs should be made, no more aggressive attacks as the Germans did. No more Napoleons.

Question: can Israel exist without the US? If we just let things alone, what would happen? If it can, then when it makes aggressive land grabs, wouldn't we defend the country Israel attacks?

there are Israelis who have said they should have all that land, not just 1948, 1949, 1967 boundaries. If others are to be judged by their extremists, considering those statements is fair enough.

I am trying to put my finger on it, but I seem to recall I have heard this before. Where, oh where, could I heard this?

Oh, I see, you read a proposal in an OP which advocates ethnic cleansing of Jews, I respond, and you go all "whataboutism". Gotcha.

I wanted to hear your opinion.

No need to be so testy. I'm 100% supportive of the right for Israel to defend itself today and would never advocate the dissolution of the country.

So tell me about what happened in 47/48 after WW2.

In an nutshell, did a Western Colonial power slice up a territory they were occupying to establish a Jewish State?

What did the 1947 population think


Don't get testy... I want to hear your opinion.

And I will get testy when someone proposes the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

I asked a question.

Why can't you respond?

Here's a sample answer:

"Due to the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust, the concept of forming an Israeli State carved out of a Colonial possession was fair and equitable for all parties involved"

You claimed it was logical. Why don't YOU explain the logic.

Logic vs Rationality...

So do you agree with my sample answer that is my prediction of how you think?

Asking why the Palestinians couldn't leave Israel for a new and more spacious country?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218344386

1st, it is their home

2nd, no one wants to take them in

NB: which country do you think wants to bring in 2 million immigrants from Gaza or, for that matter, 2 million from the West Bank? Who's got that amount of resources? Especially when half their population is under 20 and so they're primed to see a huge population explosion.

Last edited Mon Oct 23, 2023, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

half-tempted to write about important eras, from decades before WW1, and WW1 to WW2. In WW2, France and Britian divided the Ottoman Empire. To accomplish this, they lied to both Palestinians and the Jewish people in Europe and the US. I remember talks with my maternal grandfather, who fought in WW2. He said that up until WW1, the Jewish, Muslim, and Christians in Palestine got along well overall. He was a student of history, and an advocate of Israel. But he said the seeds of lies the English and French planted are at the root of on-going problems.

European empires lasted until the end of WWII, so they claimed parts of the collapsed Ottoman Empire after the first World War. By the end of WWII, there was a rise of national identity and demand for self government in former colonies in Asia, the ME, and Africa.

At the same time, the Holocaust demonstrated the need for a Jewish homeland. Between world wars and after the second one, there were many international discussions about what to do regarding lands formerly ruled by the Ottomans. There were some proposals to make Palestine part of other nations in the region. Palestinians wanted their own identity and land, apart from those regional nations. Britain had already promised, before WWII that the Jews in Palestine could have their own self-governing homeland there. But, Britain also spoke on behalf of a separate nation in Palestine for Muslim Arabs.

my kids about this. How, for example, it was after WW1 that England "created" Iraq. Having internal divisions among the population allowed for the exploitation of resources -- obviously primarily oil. What could possibly go wrong?

between Palestinian Arabs and Jews.

They are on record saying that a Jewish homeland in Palestine would give them a western style governmental ally in the region. But, they also wanted to avoid animosity toward Britain from surrounding Arabic nations for promising a Jewish homeland there.

and the new nation would've had one of its founding tenets be our First Amendment — freedom of religion, the press, speech, assembly and the right to redress grievances — for everyone.

There would've been problems to work out but Arabs and Jews had been living there for millennia amongst each other. Seems to me the big problem was the "for Jews only" aspect of the founding. Including the First Amendment as a tenet of the new state would've made it more palatable to the Arabs there.

It couldn't be worst than what has resulted over the decades since Israel was founded, including this worst ever tragedy now.

Unfortunately mulligans don't happen in history or geopolitics. Too bad. We're stuck now with innocents on both sides suffering, but with those in charge of policy and what's done on both sides determined not to yield an inch and work out a two-state solution.

One is that Judaism is not only a religion. It is an ethnicity. That merging of religion with ethnicity is a characteristic of many tribal societies and the identity of being Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli evolved first as a tribal society. The religious rules, customs, and ways of relating to the world around them (natural and man made) give the people a cultural identity. You are Jewish, in both religious and ethnic identity, if your mother is Jewish. When establishing a nation for themselves, it appears that the ethnic definition transferred to what it meant to be Israeli.
It's possible to convert to Judaism, but the accepted path to conversion can differ between sects within Judaism.

Second, there ARE non Jews who are Israeli citizens. Some are Christian. Some are Muslim. Or some other religion. Some are atheists. (Side note: Since Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion, you can be both Jewish and an atheist.) Some Muslim Arabs stayed in Israel when it became a nation. They are a minority, but they are there.

Multiple identities and religions pose a unique problem for Israelis. The nation was founded as a safe haven for Jews. Centuries of persecution, forced conversions, and attempts to end Judaism through assimilation, culminating in the Holocaust, made it necessary to have a place all their own. If Israel admits into citizenship too many people who are not ethnically Jewish, they could become a minority in their own country. If that happens, they will no longer have a safe haven for themselves. Imagine if Christians or Muslim Arabs had enough votes to place some restrictions on Jewish holidays, kosher restaurants, building new synagogues, etc. It could happen. Christians could complain that Jewish holiday celebrations interfere with their business operations. Or, that they want less kosher restaurants and more non kosher to serve their own choices of menu. So, with enough votes, they restrict the number of licenses for kosher restaurants. They might want more non Jews admitted as immigrants and complain that making Jews automatically eligible for citizenship discriminates against Christians and Muslims. Eventually, the safe haven is gone. Resentments of Jewish culture grow and lead to Jews becoming a minority and facing anti Semitism in Israel.

Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2023, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

And with a Palestinian state also...?

listening to my grandfather talk about history. He was a fascinating combination of the best read human I ever met, and a product of his times. He said that the divisions within the three great religions of the Middle East were created by others looking to exploit. He used the example of early Christianity, which was a Jewish sect. He said if one focuses on Jesus's brother James, we get the clearest picture of what it was. Early sect members knew it was Rome that killed their prophet. But Paul took Christianity west, to become the religion of Rome. In time, Christians would buy the lie that it was Jews who were responsible for Jesus's death. Divide & conquer has long been a strategy to exploit others.

History has become a less important part of modern learning.

History is such a rich and magnificent source for stories... both good and bad about people and places and how we interact with each other,

Unfortunately, today most would rather learn about "Iron Man" rather than Alexander the Great.

.... attempted to wipe the Jews out of the Mandate of Palestine and got their collective asses kicked.

It was a FAFO operation.

The Palestinian Arabs could have accepted the partition and prospered. They decided that wasn't good enough.

Jews would still be the scapegoat for the world’s ills

Israel is one of the few Democracies in the Middle East, and why should they be expelled from their ancestral homeland, that was decided by the international community after years people trying to exterminate them?

Also, note the reply above, which pretends to play "devil's advocate", basically just another way to avoid discussion when it is the Jew as victim. It is very clear what some here and elsewhere think of Jews, Israel, and the continuation of both.

to me that the only solution to this problem will require that EVERYBODY involved be prepared to stop saying, "Why should we this... Because you did that..." Everybody is going to have to give up something in order for everyone to live a peaceful existence. Whether humans can do that, I don't know. It comes down to what John Kerry said, How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake." If this is to be resolved ever, somebody is going to have to be the last man to die.

And I'm not going to nitpick here on what is the mistake. It doesn't matter, there are plenty of mistakes here on all sides. It either stops somewhere or it never does.

I don't see how it would amount to ethnic cleansing. Surely it would be voluntary, not forced.

Would it? Sounds like the "proposal" is "The Jews should do what is good for everyone else in order to appease terrorists and bigots." Force doesn't have to come at the muzzle of a gun.

what would you say if such a proposal came from Israel itself?

I realize in the real world it will never happen but the question then remains - how to solve an intractable, cruel in the extreme and, seemingly never-ending problem?

and will not stop in the foreseeable future. Once Israel declares Hamas gone, no matter how long that is, what will take its' place? If Hezbollah is eliminated what will take its' place? What is the answer to Gaza? Reoccupy it? Annex it? Same for the West Bank? What is the plan beyond today for anything to be different? So the prison walls the leaders built on the borders result in making both sides of the wall a prison in effect.

So what is the plan for the future? Continue on aggressively expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank? Continue taking homes and businesses in East Jerusalem? Start doing the same in Gaza? What is the plan?

I say the same to the other side. What is your plan? Keep on with terror groups and killing and more killing? More of the same? To what end? Any sane person knows the Israelis and Israel are not going to disappear and the terror groups cannot make that happen. So to what end the attacks other than bits of vengeance? Tit for tat on into infinity?

We have a situation in front of us in which all parties involved long ago adopted a strategy of weapons, dishonest bargaining etc. in conducting themselves and the powers of the world have fed that and fed upon it with supplying everything needed to keep it going. It's not something that can't be stopped. But it won't be stopped because there is no workable plan for anything to be different about what makes it exist. There are only plans for more of the same.

Not I, I'll take on the merits.

I guess that's why my somewhat similar hypothetical posed here a while ago was alerted and removed.

They at least have the right to be a country, considering they’ve existed since 1948. It’s kind of hard to argue that they “shouldn’t be there” or something like that.

Maybe along the lines of "A Modest Proposal For preventing the Jews From being a Burthen to Humanity, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick"?

Judging by the responses, plenty of people are taking this seriously.

and they were going to with Saudi before the current attacks.

The regular people of Iran don't hate them.

Many places that hate them are not Arab such as Pakistan and Somalia.

That seems like an issue... You do know that the location of the current state of Israel was not randomly chosen?

Just so I understand—you are proposing that every Israeli citizen should move to some other continent? The “industrious Jews” need to cede their country? Is this a serious proposition, because it sounds like something the Nazis would propose.

On edit, I’m shocked by this post. I’ve seen lots and lots and lot of opinions here that I’ve disagreed with but never one that is so naive.

The original Modest Proposal by the Jonathan Swift was a polite suggestion that the English start eating the Irish.

...then this modest proposal (removing the Jew from Israel) is not quite as offensive as the OP's previous rather immodest proposal (to surgically remove Judiasm from the Jew), I suppose.



Incidentally, one of the great joys of retirement is that it has been years since a student has asked me if the exam will be graded on the curve.

"You raise the blade, you make the change, you re-arrange me 'till I'm sane. You lock the door, and throw away the key, there's someone in my head, but it's not me." - Pink Floyd (Brain Damage)

Pink Floyd Brain Damage/Eclipse (lyrics)

FINE with me, desert doesn't appeal to me, and my ancestors are European, maybe Russian/Polish/dunno.

Golda reminds me of my Grandma, but my grandparents lived in NYC, not Ukraine or Milwaukee.

New Jersey?
Florida?
Illinois?
California?

Wyoming came immediately to mind. Just 500k people, lots of RE available. Utah maybe, Montana possible, huge swaths in Canada perhaps, Australia and NZ need more research. I think U.S. and Canada would provide the most secure locations but at this stage we need to bring in the scholars.

Took 5 posts for me to be called a Nazi, my money was on post #3.

What of those who don’t wish to leave? Round them up?

misinterpreting the post? The person said nothing about ethnic cleansing. It was an outside the box proposal run up a flag pole for discussion's sake.

Thank you in advance

And maybe the 500K people living in Wyoming like it the way it is and wouldn't welcome another nine million. You're talking about relocating an enormous number of people to sparsely-populated locations where there is minimal infrastructure and a small rural population who might not appreciate the taking of their farmland and the sudden arrival of the equivalent of New York City.

It's a ridiculous idea, sorry.

You make a ludicrous, at best, proposal to remove an entire nation of people to another continent as a "solution" to their presence where they are.

And you expect us to have a serious discussion about it?

I made a somewhat similar proposal (well, maybe posed a hypothetical question rather than a proposal). The post was alerted and deleted with the following explanation:

"This post was removed for breaking the following rule: No kooky, extremist, or hate content. If you believe that your post did not break this rule, you may submit an appeal to the Administrators here."

Also received some rather unkind replies b/f it was deleted.

What do Israelis want? Do they want true peace or always be at war?
Seems their government desires war and combat with their neighbors
Answer that and then we may make some progress

Is "Not here". THAT is pretty telling.

as positing an impractical way to make everybody happyish. Any solution is going to require compromise from ALL parties.

Let's uproot an entire nation, destroy their roots and businesses and steal their farms and homes. Force them to relocate.

I'm sure terrorists around the world will immediately become pacifists because rewarding terror surely will end it.

And I'm sure whoever gets displaced in this new homeland will gladly welcome the people who come to evict and uproot them.

And peace will reign on earth.

Any other world problem you'd like to solve through ethnic cleansing?

But as American's, we've already done that very thing right here. And newsflash, it's also how Israel today exists. I know I know, that was different right?

If you're talking about America's war on its own indigenous population, when have I ever said that was ok?

If you're talking about how Israel was created, it was different than what you describe, because much of Israel's Jewish population were refugees after wwii.

Britain colonized the area, taking it over from the Ottoman Empire. After wwii, Israel was essentially created by the UN, and many Jews moved to Israel from all over the world. Not exactly the same story as a bunch of European settlers conquering a new world.

It's a complicated mess and it's easy to just say a "two-state solution" would solve everything, but the wars in the area have largely been because Palestinians (or at least their leaders and ectremists) and Israel's neighbors refuse to share the region in any way with Jews. I'm not saying every action on the Israeli side was proper, but they do have a solid claim to the region and a legitimate right to be there.

America wasn't created through international agreement, nor were the Europeans who largely settled it refugees, for the most part.

what will happen to them ?

This cannot be brought to an end based solely on reason and rationality.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all view Jerusalem as being the holiest of holy lands.

There is no rationality when it comes to that which is considered religiously sacred.

Pity.

Obviously, access to all holy sites must be safeguarded for all.

And obviously no one will be forced to move but control of the area will leave the hands of Israeli Gvt. so remaining Jews will be left to their own devices. Remember Israel currently has approx. 1 million citizens of Arab descent as I understand it, they should integrate seamlessly i suppose.

The point is to get most of the Jews to a place where air raid sirens never go off and remove one of the world's most dangerous flashpoints.

Someone called me incredibly naive. I suppose .
Prefer to think of myself as a dreamer of gentle thoughts

Someone put an alert on this post as extremist or kooky.

I voted to keep the post, even though I find it abstract, devoid of reality, naive, and even silly.

I'd risk being "abstract, devoid of reality, naive, and even silly." if no one has any better ideas other than leveling Gaza and inflaming the entire ME.

Simple solutions from the peanut gallery are just laughable.

Can you imagine Sec. Tony Blinken suggesting we just move Israel to Wyoming? He'd be the laughingstock of the UN.

I am an atheist, too. But, I know the power that beliefs can have over the believers. It can be more important than their own lives.

They all want the land -- that land -- for their historical claims, their religions, and the prosperity of their people. As for future claims, the Christians want it for their end-times prophecy.

You wanted an open discussion. The majority of us have now told you your opinion doesn't even make it to the debate ... and someone even alerted it as "kooky."

So how's it all worked out for all those far smarter people so far? But keep trying, because it's common knowledge if you keep doing something the same way you still have a chance that 4,697th time MIGHT actually be successful!

My, aren't you clever with your impertinent words?

The user Pantagruel wants to relocate Israel. It is to that user I respond. So, by your response to me, you agree with user Pantagruel that Israel should be moved to Wyoming.

Good luck with that!

You're idea is that Israelis wouldn't be forced to move, but the current Israeli government would be replaced by one ruled, in effect, by Hamas and the Israelis that stuck around would be "left to their own devices" -- in other words what you're proposing is that the Israelis be left defenseless against those who want to exterminate them.

at this proposed solution.

At best, it's very naive.

Even if unintentional, you are proposing ethnic cleansing.

be brought to an end based on reason and rationality. Which might well mean it will never end.

We gotta keep trying for peace ... peace by diplomacy, peace by superior force.

Sarcasm

We should be able to openly discuss radical solutions without being called nazis or ethnic cleansers. Mama told me if you're not welcomed somewhere, maybe you should relocate. An agreement on this hypothetical scale and scope could save 100's of hostage lives and 10's of thousands combatants and civilian lives , maybe even prevent a nuclear holocaust. I'm willing to offend some delicate sensibilities to toss around some ideas. I'm a proud atheist who would like to live in peace without getting shot or blown up by religious intolerants who seem to be all around us.

when we go.

exercise led to (what I hope is) inadvertent racism in line with many neo-Nazis in the world.

Since before Christ.

The Middle East in Biblical times, have been settled and ruled by tribes. They fought each other for thousands of years. They still are fighting one another even to this day.

The current state of Israel was created in 1948 by the British Government as a homeland for displaced European Jews after WWII. The Soviets at the time did not want them in Poland, Romania, Estonia, and elsewhere as they expanded their borders after the war setting up puppet regimes loyal to Moscow.

I do not have all the answers. Joe Biden is doing all that he can. Perhaps when tempers cool, can clear headed thinking commence.

Let the rest go there.

You have it ass backwards.

other Arab countries don't want the Palestinians (those now living in the occupied territories) in their countries?

You have leaders of Jordan and Egypt that will attack Israel for how Palestinians are treated while at the same time insisting none of them will be allowed into Jordan and Egypt .

to, have probably left or are planning it.

To be fair, we’d all love a simple solution. But the best minds have tried and we have to keep trying. Even the Hatfields and McCoys gave up killing at some point.

which would be that it's shitty land where nobody wants to live - kind of like the shitty lands that were allocated to the Native Americans that hadn't already been killed off. A "safer location"? Sure, like the Australian outback, or the forests of northern Canada? It may be a not so modest proposal, but it's also a not so good proposal.

With climate change heating things up, not sure Israel has a great climate profile. Wyoming or Canada might be prime RE very, very soon.

why not Antarctica? It's one of the few places on the planet that doesn't have an indigenous population to displace, and with the glaciers melting lots of new land will become accessible. Of course, much of it will be in total darkness for part of the year, but if people can live about the Arctic Circle surely the new settlers can find a way to thrive below the Antarctic Circle. I'm being sarcastic here, but resettling (or forcibly moving) the current inhabitants of Israel/Gaza/wherever to lands already claimed and populated - however sparsely - by another sovereign nation is just repeating what caused problems in the first place.

And no, I don't have a good - or even a mediocre - solution, short of building a time machine and going back to c70 AD when the Romans destroyed the Temple, and even that may not be far back enough.

IIRC, other locations were considered in Uganda and Argentina. If space, habitability, and copacetic neighbors had been the only factors, a slice of Wyoming or Saskatchewan would probably have worked out better for all involved. However, that's not the situation we're in today, and trying to address it with mass population resettlements will only lead to further suffering IMHO.