Generally, when you think of “ethnic cleansing” you think of people being killed. Also, you think of one nation doing it to another ethnicity - not to their own. But from what I understand of this situation, one ethnicity - the Jews - is being removed from an area demographically dominated by another ethnicity - the Arabs. Fortunately, nobody is being killed, but does violence need to be present for something to be considered ethnic cleansing?
If the Arabs living in the area had taken up arms and forced the Jewish settlers out of their homes and out of Gaza, surely that would be considered ethnic cleansing. However, here it is not the Arabs but the Israelis’ own government who is forcing the settlers out. Does that still count?
Also, has anything like this ever happened before (by which I mean, people being removed from an area by their own nation or ethnicity’s government, rather than that of another group’s?)
Certainly there are people – hard-core backers of the settlers, mostly – who call it ethnic cleansing. Of course, it would be well to remember the land was “cleansed” 30 years ago so the settlers could set up shop there in the first place.
Of course not. The Gaza withdrawal has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. However, Argent Towers’ claim that no one’s been killed because of it is incorrect.
I’m pretty sure that very few Palestinians were physically displaced for the settlements (if at all), although I wouldn’t be surprised if some farmland was seized. The Strip is densly populated but it’s not that densely populated, and the settlers wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of evicting people if they could just build their houses in an empty firld or stretch of sand dunes.
Anyway, that’s besides the point. If people live in a place for a certain amount of time - even illegally - they eventually gain protection from eviction; it’s known as “squatter’s rights.” I’m admit the framers of these laws probably didn’t have the current situation in mind back in the day, but you can’t say they don’t apply.
And what of the younger generation born in the settlements? Should they be considered guilty of the crimes of their elders?
Note: I do support Disengagement and I don’t think of it as ethnic cleaning. I just wanted to set some things straight.
I’m pretty sure that a number of Palestinians were displaced - in fact, that’s what part of the conflict was about. A big issue, in fact, was that they were displaced with no support, largely ending up in refugee camps. It isn’t just a conflict about land after all, it’s based on the tenet that either the Jews or the Arabs have a god-given right to be there.
My WAG - I don’t think squatter’s rights apply in Israel.
We’re not talking about the 1948 displacement in what is now Israel proper, we’re talking about supposed post-1967 displacement in the Gaza Strip - two completely different subjects. In 1948 refugees fled to Gaza, not out of it.
(God has very little to do with this, all rhetoric aside. But that’s a GD thread)
As to your WAG, squatters rights don’t have to apply to Israel in this case, because up to two days ago the settlers were living there legally under Israeli law. Squater’s rights are part of international law, which the settlers were apparently disobeying. It’s an interesting paradox - the same set of laws that demands they leave occupied territory can perhaps also protect them after living there for over 30 years, and in many cases being born there. Or maybe not; IANAL, after all.
Palestinians from Gaza did not end up in refugee camps. The Palestinians that live in the various refugee camps (in Israel and surrounding countries) lived in cities within Israel proper and the West Bank. While many were “displaced with no support”, most were told to flee from Israel by their own leaders, with a promise that they would eventually return gloriously.
As Alessan said, the Gaza settlements may have taken farmland (though, in fact, most of the area was uncultivated), but I don’t think people were physically displaced.
I, too, am for disengagement, but I think too many people have the facts all wrong. The media (especially BBC) is very biased and, even during this very difficult time for Israel, end up portraying Israel as a monster. Land is being given, not for peace, but because the government feels it must be given. Indeed, despite continued attacks and no sign of peace negotiations in the near future, Gaza is being cleared of the Jewish settlers and their homes.
No, I don’t think this is “ethnic cleansing” (because of all the connotations that the phrase entails), but it certainly is the complete removal of one ethnicity from an area. Do I think this is a bad thing? No. But do I think “bad things” may happen to Israel following this (increased attacks, due to the proof that terrorism works - it got Gaza cleared)? Definitely.
Perhaps. The American media is showing nothing but pictures of weeping women. There is essentially no mention of the fact that these settlements were formed with the most mercenary attitudes in a naked power grab and in contravention of local law.
Cite, please. All the international law I am familiar with proscribes that states and localities shall provide for laws of transfer of property – including adverse possession – through their own institutions.
Does else anyone see the irony in Sharon displacing the Israeli settlers from Gaza now just as he displaced the Palestinians from the same area as a member of the Israeli Army in 1968?