In 1923, 1.5 million people were forcibly repatriated as Greece and Turkey determined their modern boundaries and expelled “ethnic minorities” on both sides. After the end of World War II, approximately 2 million German-speaking residents of the Sudentenland were deported by the Czech government. In the port city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk) and its surrounding areas, some 6 million ethnic Germans were driven out by the oncoming Red Army. A year earlier, Stalin had sent every Chechen and Ingush in the Soviet Union to Siberia. While it may raise hackles, the mass repatriation of a civilian population is not without precedent. Since before the Six-Day War Israeli right-wingers have claimed that “Jordan is Palestine.” They frequently refer to the West Bank by its historical name of “Judea and Samaria” and advocate transferring the Palestinians east of the Jordan River. One of the most vocal proponents of this transfer, Ariel Sharon, even managed to become Prime Minister of Israel.

Still, a mass transfer of Israel’s Palestinians would face considerable obstacles. While over 2/3 of Jordan’s population is of Palestinian descent, the country is governed by the Hashemites, Bedouin Arabs who claim descent from the Prophet Mohammed. In 1951 Jordan’s King Abdullah was assassinated by a Palestinian radical. In 1970-1971 his son, the late King Hussein, drove Arafat out of Jordan and purged the country of Palestinian radical movements in a bloody conflict which became known as “Black September.” In recent years the Jordanian government has disclaimed all responsibility for governing the West Bank, and has no desire to add several million angry Palestinians to its population. The mass exodus of Palestinian refugees to Lebanon after the 1967 and 1973 wars left that country embroiled in a bloody, decades-long civil war, and there is no reason to suppose Jordan would fare any better.

There is also no reason to suppose the Palestinians would leave their homes and go gently into Jordan. A transfer could only take place during or after a major war, and would only be effective if the alternative is worse. Twenty years of low-level war have left Israel’s Palestinian population resistant to intimidation and harassment – and the recent shootings, rocket attacks, and suicide bombings suggests that they have amassed a considerable arsenal. Any transfer would require an all-out war on the West Bank and Gaza, with heavy civilian casualties. It would be a bloodbath, and one which would lead to widespread revulsion and condemnation even in the most pro-Israel quarters.

At present some 1 million Arabs – descendents of the 150,000 Arabs who stayed after the 1948 war – hold Israeli passports. They make up approximately 18% of Israel’s population; 13 members of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, are Arab citizens of Israel. While they have more rights than residents of the Occupied Territories, they still face widespread discrimination in housing, education, and employment. During the current uprising, and after an October 2000 riot that left 13 Israeli Arabs dead, they have grown increasingly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Several of the most recent suicide bombers were Israeli citizens. Any mass transfer from the Palestinian territories would ultimately, of necessity, involve the Druze of the Golan Heights and the Arabs of Jaffa – groups which have been in the Holy Land for centuries. At that point Israel would be engaging in full-scale ethnic cleansing, and Israel’s leadership would quickly receive invitations to the World Court on genocide charges.

Outside the United States, Israel is widely perceived as a bully and a tyrant; there is far more sympathy for the Palestinian plight in Europe and in Asia. An Israeli attempt at transfer could well be greeted by its very own “Levantine Storm.” America has boycott power in the United Nations: it does not have veto power over NATO actions. The Palestinians could not hope to withstand a long-term siege by the Israelis: neither could the Israelis withstand a NATO blockade, should that organization decide to intervene in the name of preserving the peace. Nor is there any guarantee that the United States would veto U.N. intervention if the Israelis utilized this option. Even in America there is growing distaste for the Israeli occupation, and widespread support for the Oslo Accords partition.

All this being said, a mass transfer would leave Israel with topographically defensible borders in the Judean hills and the Golan Heights. It would be the “Gordian Knot” solution to the tangled Palestine/Israel mess. At present this is still a long-shot option, but given the volatility in the region it is not one which can be ruled out. Should Palestinian radicals get their hands on biowarfare agents, or radioactive “dirty bombs,” the ensuing Israeli outrage could well translate into a hard shift to the right. Ten years ago Ariel Sharon was seen as a reactionary; today, much of the Israeli populace wants him out of office because he is too moderate. Nor can we neglect the impact of the American Religious Right. Many who scream loud and long about “Islamic Fundamentalism” forget that a sizeable American voting bloc literally believes there will be a last war on the plains of Har Meggido, soon to be followed by Christ’s return. They might well see a mass expulsion of the Palestinians as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy (at least the Hal Lindsey/Tim LaHaye version), and pressure our government to accept Greater Israel’s new borders.