Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Zanza]

Why did no Palestinian refugees ever flee to Syria?

According to Wiki, pre-Syrian-Civil War, Syria had 500k Palestinian refugees.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not calling what they're doing now ethnic cleansing. I'm saying that if the majority of Gazans are driven from Gaza and replaced by Israeli settlers, that is ethnic cleansing.

If driven means coerced, I agree with you.

[Jacob]

If driven means coerced, I agree with you.

Excellent

[Admiral Yi]

The statements being referred to are Smotrich calling for "willful emigration" as well as "not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing". Ben Gvir has said the war presents an "opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza", which allies have called "correct, just, moral and humane". That "opportunity" is a different conflict from one against Hamas.

I agree with you that it's not helpful. But it is also important not to weasel word away from a reality, as Orwell's line has it there's a power of facing. Maybe "population transfer" is more helpful - but it is also just a euphemism. When there's "willful emigration" on one side and bombs on the other it's forced dportation not willful, language that it's in order to allow the settlement of another population which is an "opportunity" - we should call that what it is. And if a country is volunteering to "resettle" Palestinians, then they're participating. It's why this is a line the US has repeatedly said must not be crossed (as have Egypt, the most likely destination).

I'd add I also think it's insane given the extraordinary survival of Palestinian national identity (which has, if anything, strengthened in the absence of a national state) to think this would somehow solve Israel's problems. It would move it and further internationalise it.

Edit: And I'd add that I think this is the same standard that was applied in Armenia (speaking of extraordinarily resilient national identities). The Azeris were not literally forcing people out - but I think I called that ethnic cleansing for the same reason. I think Bidens team are absolutely right on this and there needs to be a very clear red line.

Would you think differently if the Minister for Ethnic Cleansing were not calling for the resettlement of Gaza by Israelis?  I.e. if the only moral factors under consideration were the legitimacy of the Israeli military actions in Gaza, the human responses of the residents to the presence of violence, and the willingness of host countries to provide them sanctuary?

As for the Armenians, as someone else pointed out, how much of that is fear of violence and how much of it is unwillingness to live under Azeri rule?  Does that make any difference to you in forming your indictment?

[viper37]

I.e. if the only moral factors under consideration were the legitimacy of the Israeli military actions in Gaza, the human responses of the residents to the presence of violence, and the willingness of host countries to provide them sanctuary?

The war in Afghanistan was legitimate.

In retrospect, the war in Iraq in 2003 was not.  The one in 1991 was legitimate.

In 1991, the US and the coalition did not go all Team America World Police on Kuweit.  In 2001, despite the failure to come, despite some civilian casualties and friendly fire, there was a limited response to the terrorist attack of 9/11.  The US did not raze Kabul or Kandahar.  They did go heavy handed on the airstrikes after the main contingent left for Iraq, and that created problems, but that's something else.  The policy wasn't to raze entire village, despite their sometime cooperation with the Talebans.

Pro-Israeli are quick to point at all the UN resolutions against Israel, but never at Israel refusal to cooperate with the UN or anyone else to establish a credible peace plan, to investigate over war crimes allegations - even against Israelis - everything is always shrouded.  Everyone is the enemy as we hear them.

[Sheilbh]

Would you think differently if the Minister for Ethnic Cleansing were not calling for the resettlement of Gaza by Israelis?  I.e. if the only moral factors under consideration were the legitimacy of the Israeli military actions in Gaza, the human responses of the residents to the presence of violence, and the willingness of host countries to provide them sanctuary?

No.

I don't think they're moral factors but factual. The legitimacy of Israeli military action is also irrelevant - I'd almost go in the other direction, that it would become illegitimate if it was being used for that end. I think the fact has moral force rather than being made up of a series of moral assessments.

As I say, we're not there yet - in my view because of repeated, strong public statements against it from the US and Egypt the most likely host. But I think a nation state taking military action against another national territory which is causing quite significant civilian casualties, and then negotiates for the transfer of civilians to a third country with no reasonable chance of returning is ethnic cleansing of that territory. The population are being moved under the duress or threat of violence by the country arranging for them to move.

As for the Armenians, as someone else pointed out, how much of that is fear of violence and how much of it is unwillingness to live under Azeri rule?  Does that make any difference to you in forming your indictment?

I don't think it matters. It also doesn't quite sit right with me that you'd ever assess it based on the motive or intent of the victims.

I don't think we need to examine the souls of Armenians who've fled. I think the facts are clear. The last I read 99% of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh has gone to Armenia. That is in response to the invasion and occupation by the Azeris - it would not have happened without that. Whether it's because Armenians didn't want to live under Azeri rule (with, for example, streets being re-named after Enver Pasha), or because of the violence of the invasion, or because of the threat of future violence doesn't seem relevnt to me.

FWIW I don't necessarily think intent is necessary on the part of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing either - I think that and transfer v elimination are why it's not the same as genoscide.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see how you can construct a moral argument based on factors other than facts (or other principles).  Otherwise you're just telling which flavor of ice cream you prefer.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Frankly the Armenian-Azeri situation is one in which forced population transfers, way back when those countries were carved out, was necessary. This was a solution we used earlier in the 20th century, and it is sometimes the best of multiple bad options.

The way ethnic Armenian and ethnic Azeri settlement happened, you had a majority Armenian enclave surrounded by majority Azeri territory, and then you had an additional Azeri majority area that is separated from the rest of Azerbaijan by majority Armenian territory (the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic today.)

Like there is not a good way for that to work among peoples that are still prone to religious / ethnic violence. Hard decisions needed to have been made, and land and population swaps between Armenia and Azerbaijan to create two, contiguous countries without exclaves, and with the vast majority of the Armenian and Azeri populations on the "right side" of those lines.

It ended up being settled by a war and forced ethnic cleansing. I don't really see how it wouldn't have been preferable to have followed the process we tended to use earlier in the 20th century where countries made these hard decisions diplomatically.

[Jacob]

I don't see how you can construct a moral argument based on factors other than facts (or other principles).  Otherwise you're just telling which flavor of ice cream you prefer.

Agreed.

Which is what Sheilbh is doing.

[Admiral Yi]

Agreed.

Which is what Sheilbh is doing.

In your view what are the facts that he considers necessary to sustain an ethnic cleansing charge?

[Jacob]

In your view what are the facts that he considers necessary to sustain an ethnic cleansing charge?

I think a nation state taking military action against another national territory which is causing quite significant civilian casualties, and then negotiates for the transfer of civilians to a third country with no reasonable chance of returning is ethnic cleansing of that territory. The population are being moved under the duress or threat of violence by the country arranging for them to move.

Fact 1: The Gazan population is under threat of violence by the IDF.
Fact 2 (hypothetical scenario at this point): Israel makes the arrangement for the Gazan population to leave Gaza.
Fact 3 (hypothetical scenario at this point): In the aftermath of 1 & 2, there are few or no Gazan lefts in Gaza or parts of Gaza, while Israeli settlers move in.

QED ethnic cleansing, in the most classic sense. It may not come to pass - since some of those facts are only scenarios rather than something that has happened. But if it does, that's ethnic cleansing.

That 1 - the threat of violence - purportedly may be done for some other reason than to ethnically cleanse Gaza does not change the fact that the Gazan population is leaving the area to escape violence by the entity that is replacing them with their own citizens;. That is ethnic cleansing.

[Admiral Yi]

But some of those facts are not present in Nogorno Kabarak and he calls that ethnic cleansing too.

[Jacob]

But some of those facts are not present in Nogorno Kabarak and he calls that ethnic cleansing too.

What step was missing in NK?

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).

[OttoVonBismarck]

The threat of violence in NK was pretty low, from all we saw. After the initial fighting the NK authorities agreed to stop fighting, and Azerbaijan said they were free to continue living there as Azerbaijani citizens as long as they did not try to break away again or etc. The Armenians decided they didn't trust Azerbaijan to rule them, and left.

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.

The issue also is the post-Soviet settlement, NK was legally Azerbaijani, maybe it shouldn't have been, but that is where the international community came down on it. Armenia used force, supported by Russia, to largely take control over it shortly after, and once the force calculation changed, Azerbaijan basically reversed that--but legally this was always Azerbaijani territory.

[Admiral Yi]

What step was missing in NK?

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).

The threat of violence if you do not leave.  It's emminently possible that Azeri troops have been telling Armenians "if you do not flee we will kill you."  I have not heard about it and it's possible they are doing that but without that evidence I do not agree with ethnic cleansing.

For that matter I have not heard any overt message or symbolic gesture from the Israelis that I would interpret to mean "if you do not leave Gaza we will kill you."

Compare these with Bosnia, where this particular message was repeated, and acted upon, until the desired end was achieved.