Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Josquius]

In NK the threat was pretty clear from general Azeri policy and past ethnic cleansing of Armenians, including those long dead, from Azerbaijan.
All evidence suggested the smart move was to get the fuck out-and that's based on an abstract western view rather than what Armenian media might be saying.

You don't have to literally say "go or we will kill you". There's always mafia style "wouldn't it be a shame if someone were to accidentally drop a grenade through the window of your lovely home..."

[Sheilbh]

It is pretty factually different from Gaza in a number of ways (namely no one is leaving Gaza en masse, you guys are spending a lot of masturbatory time on something that comes from Bezalel Smotrich and won't be implemented), most importantly there is credible evidence Azerbaijan wasn't going to just bomb NK into a pile of rubble, and the Armenians largely admitted they simply weren't willing to tolerate being part of Azerbaijan.

It's not just Smotrich. The reason I've been banging this drum for a while is that the US and Egypt have repeatedly issued public statements saying "don't do this". My view is that the only reason they've been doing that (since at least November) is because that's what they're hearing in their dealings with the Israeli government. You don't publicly warn an ally, sometimes quite sternly, against something you don't think they'll do.

For me the crucial steps are 1) (threat of violence) and 3) (replacing a displaced population on the assumption they're never coming back). 2) is less not required to meet the definition, but rather is a tool to enable 3).

Yeah I agree. 1 and 3 are the crucial ones.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's not just Smotrich. The reason I've been banging this drum for a while is that the US and Egypt have repeatedly issued public statements saying "don't do this". My view is that the only reason they've been doing that (since at least November) is because that's what they're hearing in their dealings with the Israeli government. You don't publicly warn an ally, sometimes quite sternly, against something you don't think they'll do.

I think you are reading the tea leaves too deeply.

My guess is the most the upper elements of the administration, e.g. Netanyahu and his core entourage, have probably at most tried to see if there was any room to establish a refugee camp in the Sinai, which I'm sure was instantly shot down. That is a far cry from Smotrich's position which is to literally reduce the population of Gaza to ~200,000 people.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In NK the threat was pretty clear from general Azeri policy and past ethnic cleansing of Armenians, including those long dead, from Azerbaijan.
All evidence suggested the smart move was to get the fuck out-and that's based on an abstract western view rather than what Armenian media might be saying.

You don't have to literally say "go or we will kill you". There's always mafia style "wouldn't it be a shame if someone were to accidentally drop a grenade through the window of your lovely home..."

To Yi's point (hopefully not misrepresenting), I can agree that you can call it ethnic cleansing if people are driven out by threat of violence, but I don't think it counts if they are merely "unhappy." I feel like the Armenians were a lot closer to the latter than the former. Their main beef when they left was largely that they weren't being allowed to retain an autonomous state inside another country's borders, and left instead of accept the legal reality that they were in Azerbaijan. That is different from leaving at the point of the sword.

[Sheilbh]

On the challenge of what to actually do in Gaza - from the national unity wing of the coalition. I think Indyk's summary of the challenges with this plan is very generous:

Martin Indyk
@Martin_Indyk
Last night Israeli defense minister Gallant laid out to the security cabinet the IDF's plan for the "day after" in Gaza. It has four components: Israeli responsibility for overall security (including freedom to operate in Gaza); cooperation with Egypt to control and seal the Egypt/Gaza border; a U.S.-led international force to maintain order; and a civilian administrative structure based on local employees. Notably, Gallant declared there will be no Israeli civilian presence in Gaza.
🧵My take on Gallant's concept (spoiler alert - bold prediction in 6/6): 1/6 Gallant's plan is not yet fully articulated or embraced by Netanyahu, let alone his cabinet. But it is most likely to prevail because it represents the IDF's needs.
2/6 There is inherent tension in Israel taking overall security responsibility for itself and handing over security responsibility to a U.S.-led multinational police force which will not be willing to be sub-contractors to the IDF. As of now, there is no such force being constituted and no willingness of any Arab state to participate.
3/6 Working with Egypt to prevent smuggling of arms into Gaza from Sinai is a noble objective but it didn't work before and is unlikely to work now because there's too much money to be made in smuggling.
4/6 By looking to local administrators and bureaucrats to run civil affairs in Gaza, Gallant has knowingly opened the way to a return of the Palestinian Authority. Many of those workers are already on the PA payroll; others worked for Hamas but will need a new paymaster; Arab states will not contribute the money for salaries unless it is handled by the PA.
5/6 Slowly but surely, Netanyahu's bluster and grandiosity is giving way to the practical needs of a day after policy which Israel cannot meet without the support and cooperation of the United States and the international community.
6/6 Notwithstanding his opposition to the PA, I believe the next thing Netanyahu will do is find a way to hand over to Blinken the $75m of PA money that Smotrich is withholding, thereby helping to prevent the financial collapse of the PA. Watch for a package deal in which Abu Mazen appoints a new technocratic PM and prisoner payments are reformed, paving the way for Biden's "Revitalized PA" to start picking up the pieces in Gaza.

[Admiral Yi]

To Yi's point (hopefully not misrepresenting), I can agree that you can call it ethnic cleansing if people are driven out by threat of violence, but I don't think it counts if they are merely "unhappy." I feel like the Armenians were a lot closer to the latter than the former. Their main beef when they left was largely that they weren't being allowed to retain an autonomous state inside another country's borders, and left instead of accept the legal reality that they were in Azerbaijan. That is different from leaving at the point of the sword.

That's pretty much it.

[Jacob]

That's fair enough IMO. The question becomes where exactly it lands between "you're unwilling to live here with us in charge" through "we'll say you can stay because that's the best PR, but you and I both know we'll fuck you up if you stay... oh, you're leaving? How convenient" to "get out or die."

I don't have any insight to where that line sits in Nagorno-Karabakh.

[Admiral Yi]

That's fair enough IMO. The question becomes where exactly it lands between "you're unwilling to live here with us in charge" through "we'll say you can stay because that's the best PR, but you and I both know we'll fuck you up if you stay... oh, you're leaving? How convenient" to "get out or die."

I don't have any insight to where that line sits in Nagorno-Karabakh.

A threat of future violence is no different than a threat of present violence IMO.  The line is the threat being communicated.

[Jacob]

A threat of future violence is no different than a threat of present violence IMO.  The line is the threat being communicated.

Agreed. I guess where the potential ambiguity is about implicit threats. "Nice family. Would be a shame if something happened to it because you decided to be obnoxious, wouldn't it?"

[Josquius]

In NK the threat was pretty clear from general Azeri policy and past ethnic cleansing of Armenians, including those long dead, from Azerbaijan.
All evidence suggested the smart move was to get the fuck out-and that's based on an abstract western view rather than what Armenian media might be saying.

You don't have to literally say "go or we will kill you". There's always mafia style "wouldn't it be a shame if someone were to accidentally drop a grenade through the window of your lovely home..."

To Yi's point (hopefully not misrepresenting), I can agree that you can call it ethnic cleansing if people are driven out by threat of violence, but I don't think it counts if they are merely "unhappy." I feel like the Armenians were a lot closer to the latter than the former. Their main beef when they left was largely that they weren't being allowed to retain an autonomous state inside another country's borders, and left instead of accept the legal reality that they were in Azerbaijan. That is different from leaving at the point of the sword.

99% of the population of a place don't leave everything they know and own, land that has been in their family since time immemorial, just because they're mildly miffed at a change in government policy.

That level of movement simply never comes. Even in frontline Ukrainian towns you get more than 1% hanging on. This suggests there was a serious belief in NK that it was go or die.

Azerbaijani policy over recent decades has been pretty clear - eradicate all trace of Armenians ever existing. I understand why still breathing Armenians might feel at risk under the rule of such a dictatorship.

[Admiral Yi]

Agreed. I guess where the potential ambiguity is about implicit threats. "Nice family. Would be a shame if something happened to it because you decided to be obnoxious, wouldn't it?"

That one is pretty unambiguous to me as well.  There's no legitimate reason to hint at violence to one's family as a repercussion for mouthing off to the police or whoever.

[Admiral Yi]

Takes backs.  Azeri police could just be douche bags and act that way to everyone, including Azeris.

[Tamas]

Guardian article: reckless Israeli aggression is forcing victim Hezbollah's hand: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/05/israel-hezbollah-war-hamas-saleh-arouri-lebanon

[Jacob]

That one is pretty unambiguous to me as well.  There's no legitimate reason to hint at violence to one's family as a repercussion for mouthing off to the police or whoever.

The ambiguity is not in whether it's legitimate. The ambuguity is for outside parties such as ourselves in determining what is happening. Are the Armenians leaving because they just hate the Azeris so much they don't want to stay? Or are they leaving because the Azeris have let them know - subtly but unequivocally - that it would be dangerous for them to stay?

[Sheilbh]

99% of the population of a place don't leave everything they know and own, land that has been in their family since time immemorial, just because they're mildly miffed at a change in government policy.

That level of movement simply never comes. Even in frontline Ukrainian towns you get more than 1% hanging on. This suggests there was a serious belief in NK that it was go or die.

Azerbaijani policy over recent decades has been pretty clear - eradicate all trace of Armenians ever existing. I understand why still breathing Armenians might feel at risk under the rule of such a dictatorship.

I agree. The region was more or less entirely emptied of the ethnic Armenian population. I don't really know what else you'd call that. There was intimidation from Azeri troops, but also there was an invasion - the threat of violence is, I'd argue, pretty explicit in invasion and occupation.

The fact that it was people moving "voluntarily" - in the context of an invasion and occupation - seems by the by to me. I thin this is an example of relevant "lived experience" where I think the experience of a war in the 90s that was brutal and of subsequent invasion is going to shape Armenians' response. Also as I say I think even on principle it is problematic for working out what is ethnic cleansing or not. I can't think of many other things where we examine the mind of the victim for their intent. For example if the Armenians left just because they could not abide Azeri rule - would it make a difference if the Azeri intent was to ethnically cleanse the region and they just hadn't got started?

I think intent is, obviously, important for genocide - but that is about the intent of the perpetrator (which I'm more comfortable with).

Though I think OvB is right in his comparison with Nagorno-Karabakh of earlier European population transfers - to some extent it reminds me of Greece Turkey. With the slight caveat that Aliyev is repeatedly referring to the rest of Armenia as "West Azerbaijan".

My view is that I think those population transfers were also ethnic cleansing before the word - even, say, the post-war expulsion of Germans even if that is the most understandable example. I think that it is a huge part of the emergence of nation-states in Europe of people's submitted to either forced assimilation or forced out.

Totally off topic but I think it's an example of European ball of lightness that I always find very annoying. I've been to Poland a couple of times in the last year and, to the point in that Sam Kriss article, Gdansk is a very German Polish city. But it makes me think of President Ruto's comments on the invasion of Ukraine, that Africa was left with borders that were straight and didn't match their people and has been comparatively peaceful despite that. The corner of the world that is blood-soaked in making borders and people match is Europe, but you still see stuff about "deep seated" tribal and ethnic tensions in African reporting. Similarly the anonymous European diplomat quoted as saying it was intolerable that European history in Ukraine was being decided by tank battles - apparently oblivious to the fact that in no continent in the world has history been decided more by tank battles than Europe.