I really don’t want to get involved… But I think someone else needs to say this: The original post is indeed ambiguous. It could be interpreted in two ways:

i) making every country safe for jews indicates that they should be going back to “their” country of origin

ii) making every country safe for jews indicates that a new state of israel/palestine is also safe for jews and everyone can just go on and live wherever they please.

Now we have two possible interpretations. The problem being that i) is actually ignorant of historical facts (jews have lived in that region far longer than muslims) and while admittedly being a minority have some right to live in the region. The claim that ashkenazi jews are by and lagre converts has also not a real and (this is even more important) clear historical background. On the other hand ii) might be a fairer interpretation and would actually solve a lot of things but fails in two aspects: 1) It seems not an easy solution and 2) It has the air of being a bit oversimplified. It reminds of a child hearing of war for the first time and reacting with “why can’t they just stop and love each other”. This sentiment is noble and a nice thought but it’s also not based in reality.