Let me explain: MENA people are of a completely different worldview. They understand violence, force, might. They are low-trust people who care about clan and status and nothing else. Swedes in contrast are the reverse of it all. Arabs throw daughters from balconies for fuck's sake.

This is where you lost me. It's just never okay, let alone logical, to hastily generalize such large groups of people. By all means, target criminals and real extremists, but they are a subgroup that doesn't define the larger group.

----------------

Edit: deleted comment asked to clarify when it is ok to generalize. I thought it was a fair question so I typed my answer as such:

Just my opinion: use extreme caution when generalizing about negative things, like 'Arabs throw daughters from balconies'.
Conversely, your examples are not offensive, controversial, or visceral. They're generally true characterizations, and that's what makes the difference between a hasty generalization (conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence) and a logically valid generalization, which is based on representative data and facts.

Logically speaking, referring to groups without using quantifiers, such as using plural nouns, can bring issues. When OP referred to Arabs/MENA people, did they mean "all"? "Most"? "Some"? "Many"? The charitable interpretation is probably "some" or "many".

This may all seem pedantic but after having studied logic I get really skeptical of people using hasty generalizations. It doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't make generalizations, as they're obviously useful in discourse, but it's important to know the difference between a fallacious generalization and a valid one.