Quote Originally Posted by BluntHorse View Post
It's just a PR problem. Given that the political ideology that enabled European refugees of a particular ethnicity/religion (who were undoubtedly subject to an unparalleled level of persecution and evil in European lands) to systematically expel the majority of inhabitants of historic Palestine in 1948 continues to be in receipt of unconditional support in key civilised Western nations, I am not sure why 'ethnic cleansing' is such a bad word. Transfer is not a dirty word.



Link

Actually, I disagree with Ben Shapiro. The best way to solve the conflict really is to eliminate the Arabs who claim to be from the land they call Palestine to every last man, women and child. Israel should go full on Amalek. Only then Israel can have the peace it yearns for. This is the only way to ensure that between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.


I genuinely do not understand why anyone is squeamish at the thought of using 'violence' and 'transfer' Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs to maintain the Jewish character of the world's only Jewish state. Moving them to the Sinai is a strategic mistake. Does Israel really think the transferred population will stop terrorism against them? Most likely, this situation will be worse for Israel. These Arabs will likely disrupt shipping trade through the Suez. The future Ben Gurion Canal would be similarly affected as they have a full length border with the Gulf of Aqaba.
The only thing that bothers me is that this could all end in WWIII.

P.S. As far as I know as we speak most Israelis have their roots in the Middle East and Northern Africa.