The transfer option goes mainstream

VFR has been advocating it for years, saying that either Israel does it, or Israel dies. Robert Locke writing at vdare in 2003 worked out a detailed, sensible, civilized strategy for carrying it out. And now James Lewis writes at a neocon website, The American Thinker:

The jihadi advantage is largely psychological so far; it all goes back to Israel’s fervent wish for a permanent peace, an end to all the trouble, forever and ever, amen. Muslims dwell under no such illusion. Just as Britain cannot rid itself of 1200 known terrorists because they can claim legal asylum, Israel is unwilling to simply invade Gaza, the West Bank and southern Lebanon, and tell their populations to pack up and leave. That would be “ethnic cleansing,” a loudly declared sin during the Clinton years.

Morally flexible as always, the Left has now decided that ethnic cleansing is a very good solution for the very existence of Israel. However, Israel will not agree.

It is not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but the time may come when Israel will feel compelled to move enemy populations out of the neighboring territories. That will not happen until a deep re-evaluation takes place. It will not happen until Europe and America are too scared and preoccupied by the jihadist threat to care. But for sane and rational leaders, it is a sensible long-term goal. Neutralizing jihadi populations will not lead to an everlasting peace, but it is a rational option for the future. It may purchase some safety and security for a period of years. That is all any nation can hope for.

That Lewis blames Israel’s plight solely on Clinton, and suggests that only Democrats, not Republicans, would be scandalized at the thought of the forced removal of a non-Western population, is certainly not truthful on his part. Yet it may serve a pragmatic purpose: to help move the issue in the direction of making transfer a thinkable thought for Republicans and conservatives.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 17, 2006 07:53 AM | Send