fbpx

Breaking the ‘Transfer’ Taboo

A clear majority of Israelis support "the possibility of Arabs from Gaza moving to live in another country" as proposed by President Donald Trump.
[additional-authors]
February 5, 2025
Naeblys/Getty Images

 

A clear majority of Israelis support “the possibility of Arabs from Gaza moving to live in another country” as proposed by President Donald Trump. Among Jews, a majority also assumes that this is a “practical plan that should be promoted.” If this doesn’t shock you, think again about what such a position means. 

It means that Israelis are willing to consider the radical solution of “transfer.”

It means that many of them – and the U.S. President – consider such a solution as “practical.”

“Some words have been hit in a historic car accident and their use has been banned by the political correctness police,” wrote Aryeh Eldad, one of the most thoughtful, and radical, thinkers of Israel’s right. “The term that received a glorious cleansing this week thanks to the U.S. president is ‘transfer.’” And glorious it is: radical politicians of the right were banned or shunned because of their support of transfer. Meir Kahane was prevented from running in the Knesset. Rehavam Ze’evi was considered by many Israelis an illegitimate political partner, because of his support for transfer. 

But he insisted that there’s no better solution to the conflict: “Zionism as a whole is a Zionism of transfer,” he argued in the early 1990s, as Israel was engaged in the Oslo process, an attempt to achieve peaceful co-existence. “The transfer of the Jewish people from the Diaspora to Zion, and the transfer of the Arabs from the neighboring countries to Palestine, who came here to enjoy and benefit from the prosperity that the Jews brought to this land. Now the time has come for the third transfer — the separation of the peoples — so that they will stop murdering each other.”

Zeevi was allowed to run for office, without getting in legal trouble, because of his careful strictness to mention only “transfer by consent.” Whether such a possibility even exists in the real world is a matter of debate. Some supporters of transfer point to the mass transfer of Turks and Greeks in the early 20th century as an example of a proper solution to an intractable problem. And that was indeed a consensual transfer, as far as governments go. The civilians that were forced to leave their homes and places of birth were less in agreement that this was the ideal solution to their situation.

The idea to “just clean out that whole thing” isn’t yet a plan. And it is more specific than ideas floated by previous supporters of transfer, who wanted all Arabs who live under Israeli occupation to move to other places (some of them thought that the deal must also include Arab citizens of Israel). And yet, it is a breaking of a taboo. The leader of the free world suddenly seems to side with the most radical Israeli right-wing viewpoint, and it’s not just him, it is also, hesitatingly, a vast number of Israelis who wouldn’t be considered radical for any other reason.

How did this happen? That’s quite easy to explain. The trauma of Oct. 7 hardened Israelis’ hearts and positions. They see how Gazans treat the hostages, how they celebrate the devastation of their place as a victory, how they vow to continue the fight – and they conclude that with such neighbors a war will never end.

What else happened? Nothing else worked. A war in Gaza did not end in a stable resolution; withdrawal from Gaza didn’t do the trick; money didn’t buy quiet; elections ended in tragedy. What else can one do if one wants peace for everybody? Trump has something that resembles an idea: “I’d rather get involved with some of the Arab nations and build housing in a different location where I think they could maybe live in peace for a change.” Israelis responded with a resounding yes – Arabs, as you’d expect, with a resounding no.

The Arabs say no for a variety of reasons. For starters, understandably, no sane leader wants this radicalized population as residents or citizens in his country. But that’s not the only reason. Another reason is the suspicion that if a transfer works in Gaza, there’s no rationale not to consider it as a more comprehensive solution for the conflict. And this means a final departure from the dream of an Arab “Palestine,” alongside Israel or replacing Israel, between the Jordan River and the sea.  

It is easy to sympathize with Trump’s proposed bold idea, and easy to see why Israelis consider it a good idea, and easy to understand why the Arabs oppose it so vehemently. One thing is no longer easy: to ignore it. 

So it is easy to sympatize with Trump’s proposed bold idea, and easy to see why Israelis consider it a good idea, and easy to understand why the Arabs oppose it so vehemently. It is easy to come up with arguments for it, just as it is easy to come up with arguments against it. One thing is no longer easy: to ignore it. Whether one sees it as a threat, as a tool of leverage or as a plan that could be implemented – it is here. On the table. Civilized people consider the “transfer” as a legitimate path of action. That, in its own way, is a revolution.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

A new IDF Chief of Staff was appointed this week. Here’s what I wrote:

PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Katz decided not to gamble when appointing a Chief of Staff. They went for the most predictable, the safest, the almost predetermined, boring choice. Ostensibly, this is an appointment that contradicts the prevailing and aggressive discourse about the need for a revolution, a change of approach, a transition from yesterday’s progressive IDF to tomorrow’s aggressive IDF. But, after all the talk, came an appointment that is entirely yesterday’s IDF. The leaders did not look for some young, revolutionary, and surprising appointment, but rather opted for the appointment that is the safest, most routine, most acceptable. You wanted bold? You got solid. 

A week’s numbers

A Midgam survey demonstrates some of the difficulties in strengthening the ties between Jewish and Arab citizens in Israel.

 

A reader’s response

Rachel Rosenfeld asks: “Shmuel, I wonder if anyone picked up on your idea of having National Jewish Book Awards books available to Israelis” Answer: Surprisingly, yes. I can’t tell you this is happening, but it did intrigue some people who could potentially make it happen.


Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

A Bisl Torah — Take the Step

An important reminder to each one of us is to have faith in God that our lives will change. And God has faith in us to begin the process.

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.