Possible Solutions to the Israel Problem

Prinz Eugen
Daily Stormer
March 23, 2015

In an article on Breitbart by someone going as Virgil entitled “The Future of the Middle East: Ominous Scenarios and a Possible Solution for Israel” considers three factors in the Middle East, before calling for a removal of the Palestinians from Palestine.

It begins:

First, despite international pressure, Israel will not agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Second, the oftentimes violent struggle over modernity in the Arab Middle East will continue to rage ominously.

Third, Iran—a non-Arab but Muslim country—will be a nuclear power or near-nuclear power.

He then draws a parallel with Taiwan:

Taiwan had become an almost exclusively “Republican” cause; for their part, Democrats couldn’t wait to break relations with Taiwan in favor of the mainland, formally known as the People’s Republic of China (PRC). And that’s exactly what President Jimmy Carter did in 1978. Today, Taiwan exists as a sort of non-country country, doing its best to avoid being swallowed by the PRC.

So Israel, today, is faced with what might be called “Taiwanification.” That is, if the Republicans are in charge, things are fine, but if the Democrats are in charge—watch out.

And points out that multi-culturalism is not feasible:

With the benefit of hindsight, only the willfully blind can’t see that peaceful multiculturalism—to say nothing of free democracy—is an illusion. Yes, it’s possible for countries to be multi-ethnic, provided that those ethnicities can coalesce around a common culture and set of national values.

I suppose he is slyly arguing that America can be multi-ethnic while Israel cannot. He seems utterly unconcerned or oblivious to the fact that minority groups in the US have an entirely different culture, and often different values.

However, he contradicts himself later by:

The last few decades have served to remind us that democracies—indeed, societies—really only function when people are inclined to want to live together. If they don’t wish to be in the same country, they have many negative, even violent, ways of expressing themselves, as we have seen.

This is indeed a good argument for Secession.

But Virgil does not want a territorial split of Palestine as envisioned by the Peel Commission, UN or ’67 Borders, but wants the whole shebang:

And so, since the Israelis believe that they need the land of the West Bank, permanently, for their own physical security, perhaps it’s best if the Palestinians depart. Okay, if one wants to put it more bluntly, perhaps it’s best if the Palestinians are forcibly removed from the West Bank.

This is dubiously justified by precedent:

In world history, we’ve learned that when there’s a dispute over territory, it’s often best simply to settle the matter, and not leave it to fester. That’s what the United States did on many occasions in the 19th century, moving the Indians out of their ancestral homelands to new lands in the West.  Was it a nice policy?  No, not really.  Was it necessary?  Yes, really; a new and secure America had to be built.

Never mind that we are constantly told that the situation of the Israeli is akin to that of the Sioux and Cherokee, that these Jews are reclaiming their territory from 2000 years ago, stolen by evil colonizers.

He continues:

More recently, we might note that one of the reasons that Europe has been mostly peaceful since 1945 is that European borders were finally mostly rationalized—that is, one people, one country. This rationalization, we might note, involved huge population transfers; some 12 million ethnic Germans, for example, were forcibly transferred out of Eastern Europe to Germany. It wasn’t a happy process, that’s for sure, but it was nicer than mass-killing, or another war.

He ignores the fact that NATO went to war with Serbia to prevent ethnic cleansing, and that the Teutonic Trail of Tears, which did involve mass killing, was only possible after defeat in a destructive World War. He further ignores that this was a gross violation of the Atlantic Charter of 1941 which said that no territorial changes would be made without the wishes of thereof.

You can guess the rest – “Virgil” cites Ben Shapiro, who concluded in 2003: “Transfer is not genocide. And anything else isn’t a solution.”

The Palestinian problem continues to fester, the Muslim world continues to be shaken by sectarian strife, and Iran continues its march toward nuclearization—not to mention whatever else might be happening in the world, then Israel could have the opportunity, as well as the obligation, to change the demographic facts on its ground while the rest of the world might be preoccupied with other issues.

You can rest assure that agitators will be hard at work creating “other issues.”

What the author doesn’t ask is:

1. Might 6 million Palestinians resist their dispossession, creating mass killing?
2. Might other Arab or Moslem states resist the ethnic cleansing and a general war ensue?
3. Might the refugees create a humanitarian nightmare for their new hosts?
4. Might removing the Palestinians create a “clear field of fire” so Pakistan or any other self-respecting Arab or Moslem country can nuke Israel without killing masses of Palestinians?
5. Might years of war ensue if the dispossessed Palestinians and other Moslems attempted at a future date to reclaim it?
6. Might this open up Pandora’s Box as other countries attempt to do likewise?
7. Might Israel decide that all of Palestine is insufficient and security requires further expansion?
8. Wouldn’t it be easier to move the Israelis to another location?

But where?

Here the author has given us a clue with Taiwan. Madagascar, also, is an island which is infinitely more defensible than Palestine. In fact, the Third Reich dusted off a French proposal to move the Jews there. And the natives are not as restless as in the Middle East.

But issues still remain with the Madagascar option. Everywhere they go, the Jews do not get along with their neighbors. Conflict with natives will arise as they did even in Guatemala. The Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans all removed the Jews, and they only came back.

To solve this problem, there are 4 options:

1. Step back and allow the Moslems to impose on the Israelites the solution the Israelites imposed on the Canaanites. Western support of the Jews is the only thing that is keeping this from happening already.
2. Given the moral objection to killing, the Jews could be sterilized.  This was the solution proposed to a perceived “German Problem” by the Jew Kaufman in his 1941 book “Germany Must Perish,” and paralleled recently by Canadian A. Topham in “Israel Must Perish.”
3. Destruction of cultural and genetic identity through racial mixing – this is the solution the Judeo-Bolsheviks are imposing on America and the West. Jewish women can be propagandized to interbreed with Palestinians, and immigrants from Africa, Asia and South America could be brought in.
4. The Jews could be moved to Madagascar, and their part of the island strictly quarantined, and expansion prevented.  The risk is, even though Jews are expelled from many places, they often worm their way back in.

I therefore propose that a Conference such as the ones convened at Evian in 1938 and Wannsee in 1942 to consider the options and decide a Solution. the council can include Jewish representatives as well as men familiar with Hebrews like Nasrallah, Ahmadinejad, Kevin McDonald, David Duke and Andrew Anglin. The UN Security Counsel would implement the Solution.

I wonder which proposition the Canaanites would vote for?