Removal of colonists from illegally occupied territory is not ‘ethnic cleansing’ and you should not go along with this well-poisoning term.
There is no dispute that the reason for tolerating the settlers is a racist one. Of the possible reasons, the most likely one is that they seen are as innately defective, lacking moral sense.
I’m not trying to be combative or anything but I genuinely don’t understand what you are getting at. It’s like you’ve put two random sentences together. That the Israeli Defence Force considers settlers sub-human is on the face of it an extraordinary claim of epic proportions.
Can you clarify what it is you are trying to say? I ask this without any snark intended.
So to deflect a position that you can’t substantiate (the IDF considers settlers subhuman), you just throw out another position that you can’t substantiate? I’d disagree that the reason for tolerating the settlers is racist; it seemed politically expedient at the time when they were started.
You do know that you are the best gift hard line pro-Israelis could be given on this message board, n’est pa? You make a perfect caricature for people to point to and say disagreeing with anything Israel does is anti-Semitic. I mean honestly, Israeli settlers (Jews) are subhuman (untermenschen) – do you think anyone not reading stormfront agrees with you?
Not that you will or can provide a cite for it, but cite that the IDF considers settlers subhuman?
They may not want to say it, but the shoe would seem to fit here. And it’s not just a matter of semantics.
What phrase would you prefer that I use to describe policies aimed at reducing the number people from ethnic/religious Group X in Area Y?
“Anything” would include ethnic cleansing (in the most negative sense of the phrase), right?
Anyway, putting aside the phrase “ethnic cleansing,” what word or phrase would you prefer that I use to describe policies aimed at reducing the number people from ethnic/religious Group X in Area Y?
Here’s a quick reality check for you brazil: Are you willing to apply your homemade definition of “ethnic cleansing” consequently in other modern cases of armed conflict?
In the context of WWII, would you designate as “ethnic cleansing” all post D-Day re-locations of ethnic germans that had moved to wermacht occupied territories. I.e. germans moving into formerly jew-owned properties after the rightful owners were sent to concentration camps or fled the germans? A clearcut case of “ethnic cleansing”? I would say doubtful…
If saddams fedayeen soldiers moved into beachfront properties in Kuwait during GW I - would you be a supporter of “ethnic cleansing” if you happened to believe they should take their stuff and mosey on home to Baghdad?
It would depend on how you define the terms “squatter” and “legal owner.”
But “Israel” in the sense of the region and not a term for a political body. I’m not sure what you mean when you say “they have no interests in being part of Palestine.” As I noted, there are many Jewish settlers who would stay where they are and renounce their Israeli citizenship if necessary to do so.
I’m not sure. Let’s talk about a hypothetical group of Mexicans who came to California in 1978; settled there illegally; lived there; worked there; amd made children there. First, the children born here would be citizens and entitled to stay under current law. Second, those who were not born here might very well be entitled to green cards under one of the amnesty programs which was enacted since then. Third, if some group advocated for the forcible removal of all ethnic Mexicans who illegally came to the USA after 1978, and the children of any such people, how would people characterize that group?
Exactly which law was broken? And how did a Jewish settler who was born on a west bank settlement take any property illegally?
Yes, that’s ethnic cleansing as I have been using the phrase. Assuming I understand the situation correctly.
There actually happens to be a wiki article on ethnic cleansing.
What phrase would you prefer that I use to describe policies aimed at reducing the number people from ethnic/religious Group X in Area Y?
What is an immigrant if not somebody who has moved to an area with the intention of staying there?
Seems to me that in a few years, there will be a significant number of people who are the grandchildren of original Jewish settlers.
I agree with this.
Ok, then I assume you will be in no shortage of surprisingly disenfrenchised and ethnically cleansed peoples to carry the torch for. Why limit yourself to Israeli settlers on the West bank?
Another fact for you to ponder. In peacetime, dealing with ordinary, functional state-entities you will never be able, as a foreign citizen to just move into the country, pick a piece of land that is unused and make camp. You actually have to apply for, and receive the states permission to enter the country - not to mention own property.
Those disenfranchised people that your heart burns for could only get there, and acquire property as a consequence of state aggression and the existance of occupied land and / or failed statehood. Do you think that as a matter of principle the usual regulations and frameworks limiting immigration to a territory should no longer apply in case of war and failed statehood?
If Mexico declare war on the US, is it unreasonable to not accept free relocation to the US for all mexicans? Is it “ethnic cleansing” to deport them back to Mexico?
It is and your insistence that ethnic cleansing isn’t a horribly loaded term is extremely disingenuous. The shoe does not fit, and calling the removal of the settlements ‘ethnic cleansing’ makes the term meaningless. The settlements were only placed there **after military occupation **of the lands after 1967. Removing the settlements back to Israel as part of a peace agreement does not equal the Serbians driving ‘undesirable’ people from the land via violance, or the Hutus committing mass murder against the Tutsis. Hell, the Israeli government has said that the settlements are a thorn in any peace process since they will have to be removed, but the settlers themselves would likely resist any attempt at removal, even by the Israeli government, which is the reason they are there in the first place.
On preview:
Gee, I don’t know, the removal of the settlements?
I like how you refuse to even acknowledge that the settlements and the ‘immigrants’ were only placed there as a result of a war and through violence in the first place. Your use of the phrase ethnic cleansing in this situation reduces the phrase to uselessness.
From the wiki ethnic cleansing link
The removal of settlers from the West Bank, as in Gaza, clearly does not meet this definition. This being Israeli on Israeli action.
It is a ridiculous use of the term.
The word you are looking for is
‘Removed’.
And yes. A just settlement of the issue does require the removal of illegal colonisers.
That you would consider this ethnic cleansing is beyond insane. The removal of ethnic German colonists from lands that were ‘cleansed’ of undesirables like Jews, Slavs, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Communist, etc. in order to make room for them to move in the first place is ethnic cleansing? Even though the reason they were there in the first place was a result of blatant genocide and violent conquest only 4 years old at the max?
Again, the hypothetical is a negotiated peace deal which includes that some settlers are given Palestinian legal title to the land of their settlements as part of their full rights, protections, and obligations as new citizens in the new country. What they give up is that land being part of Israel. They commit crimes and it is a Palestinian police force and a Palestinian court that deals with it. Their circumstance becomes akin to that of Arab citizens of Israel.
Why is that not possible?
tagos, so if a member of group A got members of group B to remove or kill other members of group B for them (for whatever motivation, threats, bribes, whatever), then it wouldn’t count as ethnic cleansing because it wasn’t group A directly doing it?
Quite obviously if Israel agrees to the removal of settlers and removes them it is not ethnic cleansing. That is self-evident. Using the term as you and Brazil do is both a degradation of language for political purposes and a steaming insult to all those who have suffered real ethnic cleansing.
You’d both rightly scream like bitches if anyone dared call Israel’s approach to Palestinians ‘genocide’.
Words mean something.
Mubarak is not a Palestinian.
I would not be stunned with amazement if there are other national leaders in the ME who are more then a little sick and tired of Palestinian terrorism.
I stand by my original statement that I have NEVER ever heard one Palestinian,whether an ordinary person in the street or politician,in the ME or abroad,IRL or in the media,express any sympathy for Israeli civilian deaths or remorse for Palestinian terrorism EVER.
Even a senior West Bank politician when recently talking to the media about Hamas rocket attacks on civilians said that in effect that it was all a storm in a teacup,that the Israelis were overreacting etc.because the rockets had ONLY,yes ONLY killed one jewish civilian recently.
I think you are confusing policies aimed at removing a specific ethnic group with policies that remove certain people who happen to be an ethnic group. In the U.S., is it ethnic cleansing to deport illegal aliens who commit crimes, just because they happen to be Mexican?
If the government of an independent Palestine takes actions to remove ethnic Jews from the country, that is ethnic cleansing. If Israel removes settlements of immigrants they allowed to be established while they where militarily occuping someone else’s territory, that is not.
You have failed to prove that is the aim. The aim is to remove settlements established during a military occupation. That may have the effect of removing ethnic Jews, just as the policy of deporting illegal immigrants in the U.S. has the effect of removing Mexicans.
But are they willing to become Palestinian citizens and leave under the authority of a Palestinian government. These settlers have wanted the best of both worlds, to be free of control from either group, but protected by the IDF.
That would depend. Did they come to they come to the U.S., follow all U.S. laws except immigration laws, buy/rent homes legally, work at normal jobs in the U.S. system, and otherwise act as U.S. citizens? Or did they come in with an occupying army that took over New Mexico, then move onto landed emptied by violence, stay there against the protests of the citizens of New Mexico, and insist that they not be subject to the laws of the United States when the army finally leaves? Because I definitely think the two situations are different.
Since the government of the region was overthrown by invading force, I would say quite a few laws were broken, but if you want to get specific, how about Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. For a full discussion of the legality of this, try this page. Illegal is whatever the government says it is, an in this case both governments, and the international community say these are illegal. Before you say it, yes, ethnic cleansing can be carried out through laws, but it is only ethnic cleansing if the purpose of the law or the selective enforcement of the law intentionally affects only a certain ethnic group. Just because immigration laws in the U.S. are mostly broken by ethnic minorities, does not mean the U.S. is ethnically cleansing when it deports someone.
Note, that it could be argued that the setters where not the ones that broke the law, rather the government of Israel broke the law by allowing the settlements in the first place. But then it makes it Israel’s responsibility to correct the situation. As for the children of the settlers, if they took new land, that was illegal, if they took over land from their parents, well inheriting stolen property does not make it legally yours.
On preview, Lust4Life, let me introduce you to the tragic story of Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish.
Jonathan
Words like “obviously” and “self-evident” usually end up meaning that the one saying it has no argument to offer.
If you read what I have written I have not taken a position about whether or not “ethnic cleansing” is an appropriate term. In fact, under most scenarios under which settlers would leave I don’t think it is. But your sloppy definition still demands clarification. The fact that Israelis would be carrying out the removal does not exclude it as ethnic cleansing if was being done to serve primarily to serve the purpose of clearing Jewish settlers from the area for reasons of their group membership at the request/demand of the Palestinians.
I would not call it ethnic cleansing if these settlers were not citizens in the new state or were citizens but did not have legal rights to the land acknowledged by the new state. Then it is merely a state causing their laws to be enforced to keep non-citizens out, or citizens off of property that they have no right to.
But that is why my hypothetical is important. If some fraction of the settlers were accepted as Palestinian citizens, and acknowledged/given legal ownership of the properties in question (as part of a negotiated peace deal) and they were then forced out by angry mobs, then that would be ethnic cleansing. Is that the unavoidable outcome of such a negotiated settlement? I do not think so. I believe that settlers could be offered options: take an monetary inducement to move voluntarily or stay as as citizens of Palestine subject to the laws of that land knowing that the deal was struck to allow them to do so on the property they currently occupy. If they stayed they would not get any monetary or infrastructural support from Israel and their safety would be assured by the PA. If you do not believe that such is possible and that they need to be removed else they be attacked even in the circumstance of such a deal, then they are being removed else they would be “cleansed”.
Fair enough that you did say Palestinian not Arab. But why then ignore my documentation of Abbas’s years long condemnation of terror attacks (ever since his taking over Fatah)? Maybe you never heard them before but you have now had it pointed out to you. Is this an example of your “NEVER ever” hearing even one Palestinian speaking out against terror attacks - you do not hear it because you refuse to? From the previously supplied link:
Because the Palestinians would never agree to that. And the settlers would never agree to that. Sure, settlers might stay behind, but they’re not going to happily become Palestinian citizens. If they stay behind it will be as Waco-style enclaves where Palestinian officials are not welcome. Palestine isn’t going to agree to de facto enclaves.
We are talking about the real Palestine and the real Isreal and the real settlers and the real Fatah and the real Hamas, not some hypothetical situation.
Of course in a hypothetical partition members of the ethnic group that happen to live in the territory where the other ethnic group is a majority should be allowed to stay in the new territory and keep their property, either as full citizens of the new country but of a minority ethnicity, or as citizens of the other country but legal residents of the new country. This has actually happened peacefully many times when a country has been partitioned, see the unproblematic partition of Czechoslovakia. The difference is that in the case of Czechoslovakia the Slovaks weren’t promising to exterminate the Czechs.
The problem is that in the particular case of Israel and Palestine there is no way the Palestinian state will recognize Jewish ownership of the land, whether those Jews are Israeli citizens or Jewish Palestinian citizens. It just won’t happen. You can blame whoever you like for that, but the fact is that the Palestinians will never agree to those terms and even if somehow a Palestinian government did agree, sooner or later some other government that didn’t agree would take power. Sooner or later a sovereign Palestinian government will act to throw the settlers off the land they now occupy, for reasons that seem good to them. As you probably know over the past few decades Jews have been dispossesed and forcibly expelled from many middle eastern countries, regardless of their putative citizenship. I can’t see why Palestine would be any different.