The problem with that is that none of the arab nations are willing to accept them.
Plus, a big reason why they are so radicalized is that we let them take over gaza and enact multi generaitonal brainwashing and purging of any non believers.
So sending them to other arab nations (Who have mostly been destabilized by the west by now) risks them taking over and expanding their organization massively.
Germany in 1945 wasn't exactly willing to receive a stream of expelled people from East Prussia and environs, either. Saying "no" just wasn't offered as an option.
In much the same way, what capacity does, say, Syria have to resist a similar action presently?
To elaborate, my plan would boil down to the following:
1. Complete military defeat and occupation of all Palestinian territories.
2. Complete military defeat of Lebanon.
3. Complete integration of the Golan Heights into Israel proper, with the regionn in question to be further expanded as needed to serve strategic defensive needs.
4. Expulsion of all muslims from Israel and Lebanon, into Syria.
5. Expulsion of all Christian Arabs from Israel to Lebanon, the former to be structly defined as a Jewish state, an the latter to be strictly defined as a Christian state.
6. The coastal region of Syria to be carved off to become an Alewite state.
7. A Druze state to be established, extending from the Druze heartland to the Lebanese border, ths forming a buffer state that lies between the Golan Heights and Damascus.
8. Let the muslim Arabs sort it out amongst themselves; Israel has a nuclear umbrella and should make clear that the response to any attacks will be...
disproportionate, as a matter of standing policy.
9. In the event that Egypt flips out and does something stupid, punish them by annexing the Sinai (expelling all Muslims therefrom), and furthermore: placing the Suez under international control forever.
Obviously, this would require a will to act that regrettable does not exist at present. So I fully expect that the wound will continue to fester, ultimately causing far more suffering than the above would entail. Certainly, what I propose would be harsh and violent and even monstrous-- but it would
end the problem for good. Thus preventing a vast amount of future suffering.
(You may note that what I have outlined here is virtually idenyical to what -- as I've said about a million times --
should have been done after the First World War. I would have spared us a century of trouble, at the least, if they'd just done it like this back then.)
Out of curiosity, what would you (and anyone else in favor of mass-exiling the inhabitants of Gaza) say to someone proposing we should dispossess a bunch of Americans from their homes in exchange for giving back a Native American tribe their ‘ancestral land’ back? Or inset any other similar group. Such as, say Poland being forced to give land back to Germans.
These two questions are a bit wide-ranging. I'll go one by one, in good faith.
1a. Insofar as there are concrete treaties with defined Native American tribes; and the USA has violated these treates; and the tribe in question has conversely
not violated them: these tribes deserve the treaties in question to be honoured. If this involves stolen land, they are entitled to its return.
1b. Native American reservations (or differently-named but legally equivalent entities) ought, in my view, be allowed to unilaterally secede and form their own countries, without requiring any kind of permission
a priori.
Note that many Native peoples fought each other for time immemorial before European settlers arrived, constantly taking land from each other. Their own conquests are no more or less valid than those by the Europeans. This is why I stress that only
treaties must be honoured. After all, if the European conquest is invalid... then so is every conquest
between Native Americans, and thus most present-day "claimants" are in fact the descendants of
other Johnny-Come-Latelies who themselves stole the land from some different chump!
Comparing this to Israel: the argument of some defenders of "Palestine" is that the muslims conquered the region, and that they settled it, and therefore they have a claim. By that same logic, the Jews conquering it
right back after the World Wars is equally valid, leading to the conclusion that the Jews own the land anyway, by right of conquest if nothing else. As such: if you go by ancestral possession and the land belongs to the oldest inhabitants with a traceable claim, Irael belongs to the Jews. If you go by right of conquest... it belongs to the Jews.
2a. The Polish-German situation has been settled, and very neatly so. Germans behaved like beasts to the Poles, and then they lost, and the Poles were compensated (in part, by gaining disputed land). This has been accepted as reasonably fair under the circumstances, by both parties. I see no reason to reverse this, nor grounds to do so. At least not for as long as both sides abide by their final settlement. (If Poland attacks Germany tomorrow and starts genociding, that might very well end up having territorial implications to Poland's detriment; and rightfully so.)
2b. I
have noted, however, that some Poles have recently called for the final post-war settlement to be abrogated. That is: they want more money to be squeezed out of Germany. As I said when this was discussed: that calls the settlement into question, and as such: if Poland wants additional billions from Germany, it will also have to give the land back that it gained after the Second World War. This is because the settlement is either final, or it isn't. And if you cancel it, you cancel
all of it.
Since I consider the expulsion of muslim Arabs from Israel as being reasonably equivalent to the expulsion of Germans after the war (meaning: hardly nice, but suitably definitive,
without slaughtering millions), I also feel that this settlement must be definitive. Meaning that if the Arab nations abide by it and leave Israel alone, Israel must leave them in peace also. No meddling, no funny business. All should mind their own business.
