Clearly Hamas was responsible for breaking the peace in this most recent outbreak of hostilities. Not punching back is a losing move in terms of game theory.
Not relevant to my point.
That is a popular take, but it seems obvious to me that this is about creating distance from belligerent forces in Gaza who are unwilling to pacify themselves rather than ethnic cleansing.
It can be both. It is both.
20% of Israel’s citizens are Arab/Palestinian with full rights, and they are not being driven away.
“Maximum jew, minimum Palestine.”
Gaza, the West Bank, and Arab citizens of Israel are the same ethnic group but are each treated very differently due to the different threat levels they pose. It’s clear to me this is about something else other than ethnicity.
Yes, a nationalism one.
Many people aren’t aware, but when the shoe was on the other foot, when Arab league Palestinian ally, Jordan, annexed the west bank and Jerusalem, they were not shy about ethnic cleansing. They immediately set about driving out every Jew, destroying their structures with mortar fire, and denying them Jordanian citizenship.
So you’re not denying the current situation in Gaza is ethnic cleansing. Interesting.
Israel may be on the advantageous side of asymmetrical warfare, but they are not the aggressors, at least not this time.
Aggressor as in annexing the land of other nation and oppress the citizen within. Who started the war isn’t relevant in my comparison, but if they aren’t oppressed then this war wouldn’t start either.
Palestinian forces are ignoring their realpolitik situation, poking a bear they cannot defeat for the last century. Being uncompromising has led to their situation today and will likely be their downfall.
This is true. Hamas is banking on the empathy the world has on the normal Palestinian and also the support of Iran, but that has backfired on them, causing a genocide.
They don’t have a lot of leverage but I suspect this is something they could include in a peace treaty if they are willing to pacify themselves and make viable concessions.
Pacify. Heh. Hamas did not rule West Bank. Palestine Authority cannot arrest illegal settler for the violent and murder they cause. Palestine Authority cannot object on the building of illegal settlement. Palestine Authority need to have permission from Israel to travel anywhere outside, even to Jordan. Palestinian from West Bank cannot fight back the illegal settler else they would be shot. Palestinian cannot protest else they would be shot.
What sort of pacifying they need to do next? Worship the path every Israeli walk?
Aggressor as in annexing the land of other nation and oppress the citizen within. Who started the war isn’t relevant in my comparison, but if they aren’t oppressed then this war wouldn’t start either.
I’d argue it is relevant, as the annexations were a direct consequence of said wars, especially the 1948 Palestine war. Causality matters.
So you’re not denying the current situation in Gaza is ethnic cleansing. Interesting.
I don’t think it is, as Israel is not ethnically homogeneous (a requirement for ethnic cleansing under the UN definition,) but if I’m understanding your response correctly you believe that as long as one, “Maxim[izes] jew, minim[izes] Palestine,” it still qualifies.
What sort of pacifying they need to do next? Worship the path every Israeli walk?
Pacify means stop fighting, become peaceful. If that happens I suspect more authority, autonomy, and possibly even Palestinian statehood may become possible one day. It is not possible while they remain belligerent. They cannot win through violence, because Israel is capable of way more of it. They will have to negotiate for it.
I’d argue it is relevant, as the annexations were a direct consequence of said wars, especially the 1948 Palestine war. Causality matters.
Sure.
Jewish immigration to Palestine
Zionism formed in Europe as the national movement of the Jewish people. It sought to reestablish Jewish statehood in the ancient homeland. The first wave of Zionist immigration, dubbed the First Aliyah, lasted from 1882 to 1903. Some 30,000 Jews, mostly from the Russian Empire, reached Ottoman Palestine. They were driven both by the Zionist idea and by the wave of antisemitism in Europe, especially in the Russian Empire, which came in the form of brutal pogroms. They wanted to establish Jewish agricultural settlements and a Jewish majority in the land that would allow them to gain statehood. They mostly settled in the sparsely populated lowlands, which were swampy and subjected to Bedouin robbers.
So Zionist migrate to Palestine and trying to establish their own state there…in 1882.
The Arab inhabitants of Ottoman Palestine who saw the Zionist Jews settle next to them had no national affiliation. They saw themselves as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, members of the Islamic community and as Arabs, geographically, linguistically and culturally. Their strongest affiliation was their clan, family, village or tribe. There was no Arab or Palestinian Arab nationalist movement.
Arabian sees them as friend because culturally they are similar.
In the first two decades of Zionist immigration, most of the opposition came from the wealthy landowners and noblemen who feared they would have to fight the Jews for the land in the future.
The fear at that time only from the land owner, as they doesn’t want someone to simply claim their land for their own(and look what we have today). So yes, like you said, causality matters, Zionism is the cause of the conflict. Much like how Christopher Columbus gain the trust of the native in America when he set foot there and later enslave them, slowly drive them into almost extinction, Arabian accept them, in return they backstab the Arabian.
I don’t think it is, as Israel is not ethnically homogeneous (a requirement for ethnic cleansing under the UN definition,)
Definition
As ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as “… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.”
So basically UN did not define it, but according to the report, this is, by definition, a result of ethnic cleansing. At this stage, Israel isn’t exactly there yet. But if they expel Gazan and replaced it with Jewish people, then this fulfill the requirement. However, the definition continued:
In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.
The one i highlight is applicable to what Israel did in both Gaza and West Bank for decades.
Pacify means stop fighting, become peaceful.
How much more peaceful do you want the West Bank to be to reach your definition of peaceful?
If that happens I suspect more authority, autonomy, and possibly even Palestinian statehood may become possible one day.
As i put it, the ship already sailed, the current political party and the leader stated repeatedly they doesn’t want a Palestine state to exists.
So Zionist migrate to Palestine and trying to establish their own state there…in 1882. … The fear at that time only from the land owner, as they doesn’t want someone to simply claim their land for their own(and look what we have today). … Zionism is the cause of the conflict.
Before the hostilities began Jews were legally buying land in Palestine, not annexing it. There’s nothing wrong with legally purchasing land with the eventual goal of statehood.
Much like how Christopher Columbus gain the trust of the native in America when he set foot there and later enslave them, slowly drive them into almost extinction, Arabian accept them, in return they backstab the Arabian.
Again, the earliest violent conflicts between these groups were instigated by Arabs, not Jews, (citations above.) They were not a threat and deserving of violence merely for immigrating there. This changed when violent hostilities broke out between these groups. If anyone got, “stabbed in the back,” it was the Jews who were living there peacefully at first and were repeatedly attacked by Arab Nationalists.
if they expel Gazan and replaced it with Jewish people, then this fulfill the requirement.
So if they drove Gazans out and let Bedouins or another Arab Islamic group live on that land, or left it empty, it wouldn’t be ethnic cleansing? Interesting, considering it’s the same act.
How much more peaceful do you want the West Bank to be to reach your definition of peaceful?
I suspect Israel would be willing to negotiate for long-term peace with the PA in the West Bank as soon as this war with Hamas is over, provided they can prevent rocket and guerilla attacks from within their borders and are willing to make adequate concessions.
Before the hostilities began Jews were legally buying land in Palestine, not annexing it. There’s nothing wrong with legally purchasing land with the eventual goal of statehood.
True, that’s a good point. But the point still remain, Zionism’s goal is to annex the whole palestine.
As of April 1, 1945, Jews had acquired 5.67% of the land in Palestine.
And they were given 56% of the territory by the UN in 1947. But after the war they annexed the whole Palestine and some Sinai region.
So if they drove Gazans out and let Bedouins or another Arab Islamic group live on that land, or left it empty, it wouldn’t be ethnic cleansing? Interesting, considering it’s the same act.
You conveniently left out my second and third citation from the definition. But either way, it seems that you already admitting Israel is currently doing ethnic cleansing.
I suspect Israel would be willing to negotiate for long-term peace with the PA in the West Bank as soon as this war with Hamas is over, provided they can prevent rocket and guerilla attacks from within their borders and are willing to make adequate concessions.
Do you have any source claiming that West Bank attack on Israel with rocket and guerilla attack? also not gonna happen, if you haven’t pay any attention to the article i provided.
Zionism means they want a Jewish homeland/nation, originally they considered many different territories for this. Today it’s generally understood to mean a home in Palestine, but not necessarily the whole of it. The details of what territories they believe it specifically should be comprised of will vary from Zionist to Zionist.
And they were given 56% of the territory by the UN in 1947. But after the war they annexed the whole Palestine and some Sinai region.
Ceding territory via annexation is a natural and predictable consequence to declaring war and losing.
it seems that you already admitting Israel is currently doing ethnic cleansing.
Once again, I don’t think this label fits because Israel is heterogeneous, but you’ve make a pretty good case that I might be legally incorrect depending on who moves into the territories and who gets displaced. The interesting thing about this to me is that even if safety, not racism, is the motivation for forcibly displacing this perpetually belligerent population it still could be legally classified as ethnic cleansing simply because the hostile territory is homogeneous. Were these heterogeneous territories doing the exact same things, none of this would apply. It would just be governments at war.
Generally when people say “ethnic cleansing” it’s tacitly implied that prejudice is the reason for it, and I don’t think that’s the case here. Israel should be free to annex hostile foreign territories and displace belligerent populations from there to keep itself secure, regardless of the ethnic and religious composition of those who comprise the groups trying to destroy them. This conflict is not about ethnicity or religion for them, it’s about safety, and it seems they’ve tried everything else.
Do you have any source claiming that West Bank attack on Israel with rocket and guerilla attack?
Once again, I don’t think this label fits because Israel is heterogeneous, but you’ve make a pretty good case that I might be legally incorrect depending on who moves into the territories and who gets displaced.
You either use the official definition or you don’t. There’s no inbetween. Displace of a group of people from a geography location is ethnic cleansing, the “intent” can be rationalised, the action is what being judged. Imagine killing off your neighbour and tell the court they’re unhinged and you doing so is to keep your family safe. That make it two unhinged people.
Even if the label don’t fit, as it’s the only thing you cared about, it’s still warcrime.
List of Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks: The West Bank doesn’t fire as many as Gaza but they do fire some.
1 from the last decade. 1. Could be PIJ, could be ISIS, could be Hezbolah.
Palestinian political violence: Lots of examples, but again fewer than Gaza
Not relevant to my point.
It can be both. It is both.
“Maximum jew, minimum Palestine.”
Yes, a nationalism one.
So you’re not denying the current situation in Gaza is ethnic cleansing. Interesting.
Aggressor as in annexing the land of other nation and oppress the citizen within. Who started the war isn’t relevant in my comparison, but if they aren’t oppressed then this war wouldn’t start either.
This is true. Hamas is banking on the empathy the world has on the normal Palestinian and also the support of Iran, but that has backfired on them, causing a genocide.
Pacify. Heh. Hamas did not rule West Bank. Palestine Authority cannot arrest illegal settler for the violent and murder they cause. Palestine Authority cannot object on the building of illegal settlement. Palestine Authority need to have permission from Israel to travel anywhere outside, even to Jordan. Palestinian from West Bank cannot fight back the illegal settler else they would be shot. Palestinian cannot protest else they would be shot.
What sort of pacifying they need to do next? Worship the path every Israeli walk?
I’d argue it is relevant, as the annexations were a direct consequence of said wars, especially the 1948 Palestine war. Causality matters.
I don’t think it is, as Israel is not ethnically homogeneous (a requirement for ethnic cleansing under the UN definition,) but if I’m understanding your response correctly you believe that as long as one, “Maxim[izes] jew, minim[izes] Palestine,” it still qualifies.
Pacify means stop fighting, become peaceful. If that happens I suspect more authority, autonomy, and possibly even Palestinian statehood may become possible one day. It is not possible while they remain belligerent. They cannot win through violence, because Israel is capable of way more of it. They will have to negotiate for it.
Sure.
So Zionist migrate to Palestine and trying to establish their own state there…in 1882.
Arabian sees them as friend because culturally they are similar.
The fear at that time only from the land owner, as they doesn’t want someone to simply claim their land for their own(and look what we have today). So yes, like you said, causality matters, Zionism is the cause of the conflict. Much like how Christopher Columbus gain the trust of the native in America when he set foot there and later enslave them, slowly drive them into almost extinction, Arabian accept them, in return they backstab the Arabian.
Not really.
So basically UN did not define it, but according to the report, this is, by definition, a result of ethnic cleansing. At this stage, Israel isn’t exactly there yet. But if they expel Gazan and replaced it with Jewish people, then this fulfill the requirement. However, the definition continued:
The one i highlight is applicable to what Israel did in both Gaza and West Bank for decades.
How much more peaceful do you want the West Bank to be to reach your definition of peaceful?
As i put it, the ship already sailed, the current political party and the leader stated repeatedly they doesn’t want a Palestine state to exists.
Before the hostilities began Jews were legally buying land in Palestine, not annexing it. There’s nothing wrong with legally purchasing land with the eventual goal of statehood.
Again, the earliest violent conflicts between these groups were instigated by Arabs, not Jews, (citations above.) They were not a threat and deserving of violence merely for immigrating there. This changed when violent hostilities broke out between these groups. If anyone got, “stabbed in the back,” it was the Jews who were living there peacefully at first and were repeatedly attacked by Arab Nationalists.
So if they drove Gazans out and let Bedouins or another Arab Islamic group live on that land, or left it empty, it wouldn’t be ethnic cleansing? Interesting, considering it’s the same act.
I suspect Israel would be willing to negotiate for long-term peace with the PA in the West Bank as soon as this war with Hamas is over, provided they can prevent rocket and guerilla attacks from within their borders and are willing to make adequate concessions.
True, that’s a good point. But the point still remain, Zionism’s goal is to annex the whole palestine.
And they were given 56% of the territory by the UN in 1947. But after the war they annexed the whole Palestine and some Sinai region.
You conveniently left out my second and third citation from the definition. But either way, it seems that you already admitting Israel is currently doing ethnic cleansing.
Do you have any source claiming that West Bank attack on Israel with rocket and guerilla attack? also not gonna happen, if you haven’t pay any attention to the article i provided.
Zionism means they want a Jewish homeland/nation, originally they considered many different territories for this. Today it’s generally understood to mean a home in Palestine, but not necessarily the whole of it. The details of what territories they believe it specifically should be comprised of will vary from Zionist to Zionist.
Ceding territory via annexation is a natural and predictable consequence to declaring war and losing.
Once again, I don’t think this label fits because Israel is heterogeneous, but you’ve make a pretty good case that I might be legally incorrect depending on who moves into the territories and who gets displaced. The interesting thing about this to me is that even if safety, not racism, is the motivation for forcibly displacing this perpetually belligerent population it still could be legally classified as ethnic cleansing simply because the hostile territory is homogeneous. Were these heterogeneous territories doing the exact same things, none of this would apply. It would just be governments at war.
Generally when people say “ethnic cleansing” it’s tacitly implied that prejudice is the reason for it, and I don’t think that’s the case here. Israel should be free to annex hostile foreign territories and displace belligerent populations from there to keep itself secure, regardless of the ethnic and religious composition of those who comprise the groups trying to destroy them. This conflict is not about ethnicity or religion for them, it’s about safety, and it seems they’ve tried everything else.
Ctrl-f, “west bank”
You either use the official definition or you don’t. There’s no inbetween. Displace of a group of people from a geography location is ethnic cleansing, the “intent” can be rationalised, the action is what being judged. Imagine killing off your neighbour and tell the court they’re unhinged and you doing so is to keep your family safe. That make it two unhinged people.
Even if the label don’t fit, as it’s the only thing you cared about, it’s still warcrime.
1 from the last decade. 1. Could be PIJ, could be ISIS, could be Hezbolah.
How many of that is recent year?