***

The idea of expelling Arabs to other countries was once linked to Meir Kahane and other far-right radicals, and thus considered anathema by most Israelis. Now, to the delight of right-wingers, the idea is gaining traction as a ‘moral’ solution to the war.

  • MxM111
    -5•1 year ago

    One is killing people, another is moving them to different place. I feel there is difference.

    • @ABCDE
      15•1 year ago

      Not quite. According to the UN there are five genocidal acts:

      killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.

      It doesn’t have to kill them, but to destroy a group of people (their identity) via forced relocation would be one of them.

      • MxM111
        0•1 year ago

        Yes, genocide can be done together with ethnic cleansing, more over, arguably any genocide IS ethnic cleansing. However, not every ethnic cleansing is genocide. Removal of Jewish settlement from Gaza Strip when Gaza Strip was given autonomy is an example of ethnic cleansing without genocide.

        • @[email protected]
          2•1 year ago

          You keep making this stupid argument that “not every ethic cleansing is a genocide”, which acknowledges that some are, and failing to argue why this one is not.

          • MxM111
            0•1 year ago

            It did not happen yet. How can I argue one way or another?

            • @[email protected]
              2•1 year ago

              And yet here you are, doing exactly that. You literally said calling it a genocide was incorrect.

              • MxM111
                0•1 year ago

                I am arguing that what they suggest is ethnic cleansing. Whether it will be a genocide as well I do not know, but they do NOT suggest genocide.

    • HarkMahlberg
      8•1 year ago

      Russia was moving Ukrainian children into Russia, that’s a component of genocide. German Jews were forced into ghettos, then into concentration camps. The ghettos didn’t “prevent” genocide, they facilitated it.

      The United Nations first defined genocide in 1948 in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The treaty outlines five acts that can constitute genocide if they are done “with the intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group”:

      1. Killing members of the group
      2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm
      3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part
      4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births
      5. Forcibly transferring children

      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/whats-the-difference-between-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing

      They both serve the purpose of erasing the identity of a people. The methods and means are common between the two: you destroy their homes, you force them to move, you starve them, you kill the ones who don’t comply, and you leave the weak and struggling to die. The distinction you’re making matters in a UN court, where Genocide has a legal definition and legal consequences, whereas Ethnic Cleansing does not. But that doesn’t make ethnic cleansing some preferable alternative to genocide.

      If you told a civilian in Gaza “you’re not being genocided, you’re being ethnically cleansed!” Do you think that would change their understanding of the situation much?