Until after World War II the concept of mass deportation was a political and diplomatic tool used often employed and was considered quite humane. The term used was population transfer.
Diplomats considered that it was better to resettle a restive population in another area rather than allow it to remain in an geographic area that being annexed by conquest or political settlement by another power.
I'm sorry. People like you are simply totally evil. "Population Trasnfer" or whatever other bland name you want to give to it, is an enormous crime against humanity.
Perhaps instead of annexing by conquest, we could expect that minorities would be left in peace in their mother countries, or given a semi-autonomous status if in a multi-ethnic state.
It is only when we begin to constrict freedom and deny people the right to be who they are, live as they wish, and speak and worship as they are wont, that the "problems" "requiring" "Population Transfer" surface and make it a "necessity".
Civilized people recognize the travesties carried out in Acadia, Posen, West Prussia, Silesia, Trabizond, Smyrna, Cilicia, Transylvania, East Prussia, Pommerania, Sudetenland, Slovakia, Galacia, Kalmykia, Crimea, Banat, Bosnia, Kosovo, and numerous other places as barbarism and a descent to evil.
Rights", however natural, do not exist in a vacuum. "Rights" are not self-enforcing, nor can they exist in a state of anarchy.
Then you must believe rights come to us at the sufferance of the government, rather than being self-evident, self-existant, and naturally ours from God. The existence of a Government is not necessary for my rights as a human to exist. They are mine by reason of my existence, and I don't need a government to defend them, since another of my rights is to self-defense.
Just remember that the great peace in Europe came after 1815 and the Congress of Vienna, an agreement which kept the peace in Europe for a century.
This peace was made by men - conservatives all - who understood that not all desires of people could be met. Some had to be discomforted that the general welfare might be secured.
Wasn't it better that a few be unhappy than that the world be plunged into the madness and evil that has plagued it since the end of WWI?
Crimes are wrongs; more specifically they are a recognition of wrongs. Almost no one before the 20th Century recognized population transfer as a crime, any more than society recognized salvery as a crime during antiquity.
Of course, it is desirable that races, ethnic groups, and tribes live together in harmony. This ideal situation is not now the case, nor is it likely to be the case anytime soon. It is foolish to think otherwise.
Peaceful (and democratic) multi-ethnic and racial states are the exception - an extraordinary exception, some would argue - in history.
Is it not better that groups be separated than for the population to endure an endless series of violence and retaliation?
Separation of ethnic groups may be unfortunate, but I've come to the conclusion that those who believe otherwise have spent too much time watching Star Trek.
No one reading history can but come to the conclusion that in every period some group will be dissatisfied with its lot. At this point in history, the Palestinian Arabs are one of the dissatisfied groups. At a future time, some other group will feel it is being ground down.
It is not evil to feel this way, but simply a recognition that no all desires can be satisfied at the same time; this recogniton is a component of maturity.
I did not say that rights come at the sufferance of government. I am a believer in natural rights, but I am not so foolish as to believe that I can enjoy my rights without the power of the state to protect me and them from the predations of a hostile world.
I believe in self-defense. That is why I own a firearm, but I realize that others can do the same. And since I do not wish to spend my time violently protecting my rights, I (for the moment) trust in the police power of the state to act on my behalf.
I decided to add this before reading you most recent comment.
If I am "simply totally evil", then you have nothing to fear. People like me are no threat because our "evil" is recognized by all and immediately. We can be avoided or ignored.
It is those who are partially good and evil that should concern you. They hide their evil by doing good; then when the foolish have been deceived, it is too late.
To paraphrase from the Bible: beware false prophets. Outwardly they preach good but inwardly are ravenous wolves.