They're Calling Ethnic Cleansing "Voluntary Migration" Now

[RocRizzo55]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Lithos (a host of the Israel/Palestine group).

https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/theyre-calling-ethnic-cleansing-voluntary

The plot to relocate Palestinians from territories desired by Israel is also far from new. In a 2002 article for The Guardian titled “A new exodus for the Middle East?”, Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that the agenda to “transfer” Palestinians to other countries has existed for as long as modern Zionism:

“The idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century. And driving it was an iron logic: There could be no viable Jewish state in all or part of Palestine unless there was a mass displacement of Arab inhabitants, who opposed its emergence and would constitute an active or potential fifth column in its midst. This logic was understood, and enunciated, before and during 1948, by Zionist, Arab and British leaders and officials.

“As early as 1895, Theodor Herzl, the prophet and founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary in anticipation of the establishment of the Jewish state: ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country … The removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.’”

This is a very, very old agenda, being presented as something brand new that is only just occurring to Israeli officials just now. They didn’t just come up with this. It’s been fantasized about for as long as Israel was a twinkle in its founding fathers’ eyes.

This is the real objective in Gaza. Not the “elimination of Hamas” (whatever the hell you want to pretend that would look like in practice), but the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.

I believe that some of us have been saying this for some bit of time now. Please understand that we are not anti-Semitic, we are against this sort of thing. We deplore violence, and always believe that the only way to end violence is not with more violence, but with negotiation. Negotiation even with those who seem to refuse to negotiate with you. It can be done. We just need the will to end the violence, not encourage more of it, by retaliating violently.

[moniss]

1. Yes Plan Dalet

never ended for the most part.

[AZLD4Candidate]

2. Can't negotiation with terrorists. Why didn't we negotiate with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor or OBL after 9/11?

But Israel must after Oct 7th?

Soviets should have negotiated with Hitler after he launched Operation Barbarossa?
The Abyssians should have negotiated with Mussolini after they attacked?

The world should have negotiated with Kim Il Sung after he attacked?
Ukraine should have negotiated with Putin after he attacked?

Just wondering if this standard you have applies to all situations and all people or just Israel.

[RocRizzo55]

4. Yes to all

Less blood, more talk. Though some may like violence, and revenge, it is not the only option. Many of those that you mentioned, and others were only resolved through violent means, due to leadership believing more in the military, than in negotiation. Then again, it may be a mostly male thing.
Pear Harbor has long been refuted as a means for the US to enter WWII. Read your history. Many in the US did not want to get involved in WWII until after Pearl Harbor.

An eye for an eye leaves many blind, so yes, it applies to ALL situations.

[AZLD4Candidate]

5. Sorry. . .sometimes turning the other cheek gives a fresh cheek.

I love how people tell a PhD in history to read it. How flippant you are.

And Neville Chamberlain said the same things. Appeasement doesn't work.

[RocRizzo55]

6. Not the only one

With a PhD in history. Just saying.
What's is amazing is how some folks ignore history, and think that their way is the only way. Many think that things will never change, so they don't change. If you want change, work for it. Peace should be the aim for the future. It could have been in the past had different things happened. That does not mean that it has to be this way in the present or future.

[jimfields33]

10. How can you have peace with a group of leaders who want you wiped off the map?

They even stated that want more october 7th tragedies.

[TeamProg]

7. The reason we didn't negotiate with Japan after Pearl Harbor

is because the USA had already issued an ultimatum to Japan to get out of Southeast Asia or we were going to war against them. The US wanted to control the rubber production.

Pearl Harbor was Japan’s response to our threat of war with them. It wasn’t the terrorist attack some us to believe.

[Aussie105]

3. Ethnic cleansing isn't new.

If one group despises another, there is a cleansing process.

Deny them employment in 'your' part of the world.
Deny them free access to 'your' part of the world.
Make them wear identification that can be scrutinised at any time.
Deal with any complaints very harshly. Use of deadly force is authorised, always.

If that doesn't drive them away:
Deny them food, water, electricity, fuel, security of shelter.
Encourage disease by withholding medical services.

If that doesn't work, send in the stormtroopers.

If that doesn't clear them out, just start a lot of indiscriminate bombing.

Am I talking about Palestine? Or maybe an earlier conflict elsewhere in the world's history? Quite a few other instances, if you care to look.

A note to some of the above posters:
Yes, we know how we got here.
Yes, we know the solution isn't clear.
But the parties involved, all dozen or so, need to look for the future because the answers sure doesn't lie in the past.

[TeamProg]

8. Kick

[Beastly Boy]

9. They are calling voluntary migration "ethnic cleansing" now.

In fact, they are calling anything they want "ethnic cleansing" now. And it's been going on for a while.

[TeamProg]

11. Citations please.

[Lithos]

12. Locking per I/P guidelines

Source author is not likely to be cited. Also tends to have too much of an affinity to AntiWar.com which is labeled as a Libertarian hate site.