Transfer is the most humane solution (and some clarifications)

Transfer or repatriation is seen as the most evil thing one could propose. I advocated just that on a recent interview, but I did not qualify it enough. It’s not an inherent problem to have minorities in one’s country. We have minorities in Israel who are loyal and even proud to belong to their host nation, such as the Druze and Bahai. I have no intention of kicking them out. There is even a segment of Israeli Arabs who feel some level of allegiance to their host country, and varying allowances and arrangements can be made on a case-by-case basis, for Christians, who don’t have an inherent theological conflict with us, and also for Muslims who are willing to put aside national aspirations. There is no need to expel every last one.

Countries don’t have to be 100% homogenous. The Jewish religion also makes allowances for friendly minorities who lives among Jews, and commands us to treat them with respect and kindness (ger toshav).  However, this cannot apply to someone who is openly hostile to his hosts, feels some national claim to our land, and is willing to use diplomatic or violent means to dispossess us or display aggression, or to someone who is willing to stand in solidarity with those who do. In that case, they are enemy combatants, and have openly identified as such. Realistically, most Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, along with many Israeli citizens, fall under this category, and we would be doing them and us a favor by resettling them rather than the conventional course of action against a wartime enemy population.

Ben Shapiro, of all people, made a similar case based on the morality of continued proximity of hostile populations leading to more violence and bloodshed in the long run. (He makes a good case, but I don’t think he realizes the parallels with European countries where migrant populations commit terrorism, gang rapes, and cause unrest.)

If Jews are allowed to resettle Palestinians across the Jordan River (or somewhere else in the region), there is no moral reason that the British, French, or Germans should not be able to do the same for the minorities in their countries. The analogues vary merely in details and degree. No one wants a violent and hostile outgroup living among them, and there is no reason they should be forced to tolerate it against their own interests, when there are safe and peaceful options on the table.

Daniel Friberg made the case in a European context, that transfer can be done in an ethical, humane way, with a peaceful five step program, involving incentives, handling crime, working with other governments, etc. Obviously, this would have to be adjusted for a situation like Israel, and may vary on a case-by-case basis depending on the European country and its immigrant population, but the point remains that this does not have to be done by killing people.

The primary obstacle, by far, above all else is political will of the dominant majority. If every white British or Swedish person woke up tomorrow and said, “these people have to go,” the how part would be very easy. However, the left in both Israel and Western Europe will fight to the death not to let it happen. By doing so, they are setting the stage for violence and conflict far worse than what they hope to prevent in the short term by thwarting these attempts. Western Europe has the potential to descend into civil war, and cities with major immigrant populations are already hotbeds of ethnic strife and street violence, where native Europeans are either not welcome, or fear for their safety.

This is one area where I see real potential for international collaboration with European nationalists. Kevin MacDonald has called for a similar deal between the Israeli and European far right.