1721

I didn’t define the term, you did with your own link. Did Israel try to make their population homogeneous? By all accounts, they did not. Displaced population =/= ethnic cleansing. If Israel had attempted to systematically expel ALL Palestinians, then it would be ethnic cleansing. If you can provide proof that the state of Israel systematically tried to make their population homogenous, then we can discuss ethnic cleansing. Since there’s no evidence of that, it’s not. End of story.

I think you’re focusing too much on what the official state of Israel did de jure after it was created, and not what came before, which is what I’m talking about. LEHI (The Stern Gang), Irgun, and other groups intentionally car bombed Arab populations to “heighten the contradictions” in a manner reminiscent of the Sunni/Shiite paramilitaries in Iraq. After the war, they were welcomed into Israeli society with open arms.

I don’t know that much about the war, but before it broke out was a straightforward series of atrocities reminiscent of the ethnic cleansing in the dissolution Yugoslavia, although nowhere near the scale.

1722

Jason, you can’t bring up the atrocities from one side while ignoring the other.

Guys like Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni or Amin al-Husayni were doing the same exact thing and were hailed as heroes by the Palestinians. Atrocities happen in war, but you don’t hear me crying about “ethnic cleansing” despite things like the Kfar Etzion massacre, the destruction of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem or Kfar Darom massacre. This happens during war. Why castigate one group over their actions while ignoring another who did the same actions? You don’t unless you’re trying to paint one group as a bunch of helpless victims and the other as some sort of evil oppressor. You can’t point the finger at the Jews here without also pointing it squarely at the Palestinians, who in fact had been committing atrocities for years leading up to the war.

This battle didn’t take place in a vacuum. The Palestinians killed many Jews in their 1936 revolt against the British and tensions had been running high for decades. When both sides are trying to kill each other equally, can you call it ethnic cleansing? If so, you can describe any war where there’s two different cultures involved as “ethnic cleansing”, at which point the term loses meaning. Let’s look at the definition of ethnic cleansing again:

“The planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogeneous.”

Planned indicates that a more powerful group in charge of an area, deliberately removing an ethnic group. Do you really want to argue that a civil war is a planned, deliberate removal of a particular ethnic group? Or that the Jews were trying to render the area ethnically homogeneous? It just really doesn’t fit here. The Jews weren’t in charge (in fact, no one was). They weren’t vastly more powerful than the Palestinians or the Arabs.

Furthermore, not only was it not planned, the Jews did not try to render the area ethnically homogeneous. Since someone was foolish enough to link the wiki on ethnic cleansing, let me post a sentence from it

Unlike the Arab population of Israel, among which many (but not the majority) kept living in their homes under Israeli rule, for the Jews there were no exceptions: none of these Jewish towns kept existing under the Arab rule.

The term simply doesn’t work. It’s an attempt to inflame, not to discuss.

Trying to apply the term ethnic cleansing to the civil war of 1947-1948 just doesn’t fit at all, unless you also want to argue that the Palestinians tried to ethnically cleanse the Jews. But you can’t do that, because then that kinda kills the whole “sympathy for the Palestinians” angle, doesn’t it?

If you prefer, I can just retreat to the same claim - the Palestinians tried to ethnically cleanse the Jews - and therefore are all war criminals who don’t deserve any land, peace or support from Israel. See how quickly this can become a useless stalemate if you want to try to use inaccurate rhetoric rather than facts?

Remember, I don’t hold Israel blameless. All I’ve said is that both sides are equally responsible for the situation. For every Israeli bombing on the Palestinians, I can point to a Palestinian terrorist attack. For every lousy decision regarding the Israelis building settlements, I can point to Arab countries kicking out Jews from their countries. For every economic oppression the Israelis have inflicted on the Palestinians, I can point to decades of attempts by their supporters to economically destroy Israel. It just doesn’t work trying to point the finger at one group here. You can’t get very far trying to apportion blame and using inflammatory, incorrect rhetoric on this one.

1723

Why castigate one group over their actions while ignoring another who did the same actions?

Because I’m not. Do you actually read the posts you reply to? You claimed there was no ethnic cleansing by Israelis, I explained why I thought there was. If anything I think the Arab population behaved worse pre-war once the Israelis paramilitaries started, but you’re the only person here creating a comparative scale.

As to the rest: “Jews” != pre-war paramilitary groups. Pre-war paramilitary groups on both sides commited atrocities and ethnic cleansing. As to ethnically homogenous, that was a specific goal of the Stern gang - check out principle 14.

Trying to apply the term ethnic cleansing to the civil war of 1947-1948 just doesn’t fit at all, unless you also want to argue that the Palestinians tried to ethnically cleanse the Jews. But you can’t do that, because then that kinda kills the whole “sympathy for the Palestinians” angle, doesn’t it?

Of course the Palestinian paramilitary groups tried to do so; they attempted to run out the Jewish population with car bombs and attacks just as much as the Jewish paramilitary groups.

In general - rather than shoehorning this into some pre-existing argument, please engage with the actual posters.

1724

I’m not sure why whether what Israel or Palestinians did back in 1948 should be called ethnic cleansing or not is relevant to 2010. If we conclude it was ethnic cleansing, does it change anything? If we conclude it wasn’t, does it change anything? Would Israelis or Palestinians go “my bad, guess you’re right and we concede your wishes”? Using the same kind of standards, you could argue just a few years before 1948, in that big ol’ war, most participating countries were engaged in ethnic cleansing in the form of bombing civilians solely because of their nationality. Let’s not act like killing or driving civilians away was out of the ordinary for the 1940s. Sometimes war is just war, and not ethnic cleansing.

1725

Yes, but the Stern gang wasn’t the state of Israel. Members of it may have become important members in that state, but they weren’t the state. Therefore, it’s illogical to blame the state for actions taken prior to the existence of the state itself. That’s point #1. Now if we want to discuss the 400,000 refugees after the formation of the state of Israel, let’s discuss them. But I feel that entire discussion is irrelevant because none of the actions meet the standard of ethnic cleansing, but more on that in a minute.

It’s not about comparing atrocities, hence there is no comparative scale. It’s all about recognizing that both sides committed atrocities to the point there is no good guy or bad guy. Trying to state that Israel committed “ethnic cleansing” in 1948 is just a way of trying to make someone the bad guy. Unless someone is going to also say in the same sentence that the Palestinians also committed ethnic cleansing, of which your post above is the first time I’ve heard anyone say that. So now we have two bad guys? Ain’t no white hats in this western…which is what I’ve been arguing all along. So thanks for supporting my point on that.

By the way, if you’re going to comment about not responding to posts, don’t try to cherry-pick two sentences from a multiple paragraph post.

No one has addressed the points I’ve made until your last post…and then only partially. The argument is throwing around terms like ethnic cleansing and apartheid inaccurately. I find it interesting that no one besides me wants to actually try to first define the term “ethnic cleansing” and then try to apply it. I suppose it’s just much easier to throw around the term, even when the linked definition doesn’t work in this scenario. That’s point #2. Use the definition of the term as linked - or show me another that you prefer and we can debate that one - and then show how Israel’s actions fit the entire definition of the term. Otherwise, the term doesn’t apply and the continued use of it makes posts come off like “JEWS R TEH EVEL”. It’s entirely counterproductive.

As an aside, at least you are consistent - you’ve said that the Palestinians committed ethnic cleansing as well. Now while that raises a whole host of issues on why Israel owes the Palestinians anything, I’ll leave that one alone. Because I’d disagree with that as well - war between cultures doesn’t equal ethnic cleansing. To me, trying to use it just cheapens the use of the term. As such, I’m also maintaining a consistent opinion. I would say that the Arab countries have come far closer to the definition of ethnic cleansing with their expulsion of Jews than either the Jews (Israelis after May, 1948) or Palestinians.

1726

I personally find it frustrating when people claim things that are flat-out wrong, because I find it reinforces a mindset that ruins the possibility for debate and resolution. Nothing good can come of people thinking things like “Jewish groups did not engage in ethnic cleansing in the mandate era.”

Using the same kind of standards, you could argue just a few years before 1948, in that big ol’ war, most participating countries were engaged in ethnic cleansing in the form of bombing civilians solely because of their nationality.

If by standards you mean “completely redefine what words mean.” Germany and Japan had explicit ethnic-based relocation and murder plans, but bombing cities wasn’t part of them. Don’t know about the USSR in other countries, but internally they did a lot of nasty shit like that. None of the allies had anything even resembling ethnic cleansing to my knowledge; please explain how bombing German and Japanese cities qualifies.

Sometimes war is just war, and not ethnic cleansing.

So there actually was a war, before the 1948 war, back when all the paramilitary events occurred?

1727

Doesn’t matter, ethnic cleansing doesn’t require a recognized nation-state actor. If you want to get all technical, however, post-war members of the atrocity committing groups were admitted to polite Israeli society and given positions of influence, like happened in Yugoslavia. Israel bears some transitive responsibility, just like the post-Yugoslav states do. More back on point, the previous discussion was all about whether Jews did such things, not “Israel the officially recognized UN member state.”

No one has addressed the points I’ve made until your last post.

That’s because your points have nothing to do with the discussion. You’re mind-reading some sort of “blame Israel, Palestinians are blameless” intent in the posts and then arguing against it. While common for anything about Israel online, it’s asinine. Stop it. Christ, I probably agree with you.

1728

Obviously, I agree that war is just war.

But if someone wants to claim that Israel - and only Israel - committed ethnic cleansing, then it most certainly changes things. Because the inference is that entire creation of the state of Israel comes from a immoral wrong. Therefore it easily follows that Israel owes the Palestinians everything they want and that all the other wrongs done to the state of Israel both by the Palestinians and Arab countries can be justified as an attempt to right that wrong. In fact, painting Israel as a state that comes from, and continues to support, ethnic cleansing leads to an argument that the state itself is illegal and should be abolished. I’ve heard that argument before. It’s an attempt to frame the argument as a one-sided good (Palestinians) vs. bad (Israel).

1729

They might be less inclined at overthrowing said government if it hadn’t confiscated their lands and property. Or it could be that the original reason they were driven out was to make room for that country. Ethnic cleansing.

I didn’t define the term, you did with your own link.

…which explicitly listed the Palestinian exodus as an example of ethnic cleansing. Yes, I’d say the link did it’s job.

Did Israel try to make their population homogeneous? By all accounts, they did not. Displaced population =/= ethnic cleansing. If Israel had attempted to systematically expel ALL Palestinians, then it would be ethnic cleansing. If you can provide proof that the state of Israel systematically tried to make their population homogenous, then we can discuss ethnic cleansing. Since there’s no evidence of that, it’s not. End of story.

This is you moving the goal posts. And misusing “by all accounts” again, since the linked wiki articles cite a number of historians that would vehemently disagree.

I’m using your own links against you and as such, I don’t need to cite anything else. Plus, I don’t generally cite sources like wiki. It’s lazy and often inaccurate.

Wiki is convenient because it’s a resource we all can access right now. It’s a way to make sure that everyone who reads this discussion can read up on the details without having to see whether or not their local library has the relevant books in. I’m well aware of it’s faults but the articles I’ve linked come with footnotes citing the books, articles or studies that they are taking their facts from. If you have a specific objection then you should say what it is, instead of outright dismissing the articles you are “using against me” as inaccurate.

But just for you, here’s another article on the Exodus. This one cites Benny Morris and argues that David Ben-Gurion, the very first PM of Israel, was directly responsible for the expulsion of arab communities with the stated goal of displacing them to make room for jews.

And to give you an idea of the scope, here’s a list of Arab towns and villages depopulated in 1948. It lists roughly 500 communities. There were also a number of jewish villages depopulated. Seventeen of them, altogether. The jews were not alone in emptying villages but they emptied a lot more of them than the arabs. I know this is a wikipedia link but I’m sure you’ll be able to tell me if you spot any inaccuracies.

You’re so hell-bent on solely blaming Israel for everything that there is no common ground to be had. It takes two to tango and the Arab countries/Palestinians were more than willing to do so. There own actions are not above reproach and in many ways they made the situation what it was and what it is today. They are equally culpable. Until you recognize that fact, and it is a fact, then no rational discussion can be had. But it sounds like you don’t want to have a rational discussion. You want to misuse terms like ethnic cleansing and apartheid because it’s easier to paint one group as wholly evil and corrupt rather than actually discussing the matter rationally. It’s an old tactic - if you can’t win on the merits of your claim, use rhetoric to appeal to emotion. But it doesn’t much work in this case.

If you think I’m misusing the term ethnic cleansing I’d say it’s because the term is very loaded and doesn’t match your perception of what Israel is about. You can either change your perceptions to fit the facts or you can try to fit the facts to your old perceptions. You’ve been doing the latter.

I am not trying to paint Israel as wholly evil or corrupt. Israel is not. But there have been evils committed and I can’t accept you trying to whitewash them.

1730

Jason, if the KKK went around killing blacks, like they did, would you say the US as a whole was conducting ethnic cleansing? Ok, you may say they didn’t represent the government or military (not that Israel was even a state in the scenario we’re talking about). How about when US soldiers have committed murders in Iraq of Afghanistan? Was Vietnam ethnic cleansing? Why not just call every war where civilians were killed on purpose ethnic cleansing? Is that useful or meaningful to distinguish 1948 with say, Kosovo?

I’m sure you’re well aware of the past practice of bombing civilians centers to try to subjugate an enemy. Is killing civilians that live further away, from the sky, somehow on a higher moral plane than killing enemy civilians that live nearby, amongst you? Let’s not pretend as if Israelis and Palestinians weren’t enemy forces. If killing civilians was used by the allied forces to discourage a populace, how is what the Israelis did inherently different?

According to Wikipedia, 800 unarmed Arab civilians were killed in 1948. Is that enough for you to call a country’s actions ethnic cleansing? If I can dig up evidence 800 unarmed civilians were purposefully killed by allied soldiers during WW2, would you then call it ethnic cleansing?

painting Israel as a state that comes from, and continues to support, ethnic cleansing leads to an argument that the state itself is illegal and should be abolished.

I don’t agree with the first part. Native Americans within the US are owed something, and rightfully so, but in no way do our past actions mean we should be abolished as a country. Likewise, what happened in Israel doesn’t invalidate its current existence, nor does it imply any continued support for past practices. Most modern states were at some point formed through war, conquest and atrocity. If we’re going to start invalidating nations based on that, we’ve got a lot of work to do. My point was that Israel doesn’t currently practice ethnic cleansing, nor support it, so what they did in 1948 shouldn’t influence the bargaining table 62 years later.

1731

Er, no.

And then later on…

Hence we’re talking about blaming the the country of Israel, not Jews.

As I’ve shown above, the points have everything to do with the discussion. Furthermore, when someone tries to talk about ethnic cleansing and apartheid and then applies it to only one party, it most certainly is an attempt to frame the discussion as a “blame Israel, Palestinians are blameless”. What the fuck else would you call it?

And since you still haven’t defined the term and then tried to apply it as I have asked, am I to assume that you can’t?

1732

In the case of US treatment of blacks, no; it doesn’t have a lot to do with the definition. There was no attempt to create an ethnically homogeneous population or relocate. There was an organized campaign of terror at both official government and unofficial levels, but that’s not the same thing as ethnic cleansing.

I think a better analogy would be “was non-governmental killings of Native Americans in the west to take their land ethnic cleansing?” I’d say yes - you had back and forth committing of atrocities to create an escalating cycle of violence, resulting in population relocation, etc. And that’s before the official government soldiers ever showed up, at which point it only got worse.

Ethnic cleansing isn’t just murder or harrassing a minority, even if it’s organized. That wikipedia article gives a good overview of the history of the concept. It’s more about taking and “cleansing” territory to only be of your specific ethnic group; US treatment of blacks is kind of at a right angle to the whole thing.

Furthermore, when someone tries to talk about ethnic cleansing and apartheid and then applies it to only one party, it most certainly is an attempt to frame the discussion as a “blame Israel, Palestinians are blameless”. What the fuck else would you call it?

  1. Who claimed it only applies to one party?
  2. Are you a mind reader? Because otherwise I’m not particularly sure how you’d know.

Ok, I can see how you read the before as being solely about Israel. In which case Israel still bears some transitive responsibility, just like the post-Yugoslav states which have atrocity committers in their government, and own their existence to those.

1733

And you’ve still failed to show that the state of Israel participated in any ethnic cleansing. I can find historians who support anything. Do you think I’m going to give a shit that historians sympathetic to the Palestinians are using terms incorrectly? In this case, define the term and then apply it to all parts of the definition. Furthermore, apply it to both parties. Otherwise don’t use it.

The term is loaded. Hence your attempted use of it. But you’re the one who refuses to define the term and before applying it.

Horseshit. You are trying to paint this as a one-sided conflict or discussion. You’ve been trying for multiple pages.

The victim card is played out. Israel can still try to hold the past hostage for political purposes but it is a perpetually weakening position and the people who are suffering the most, today, are not impressed.

Throwing stones like the Jewish settlers in Hebron throw stones at the Palestinians? Literally throwing stones at their neighbours while being guarded by the military. For years and years and years. Like that, you mean?

the concept of not condoning the ethnic cleansing or apartheid of millions of Palestinians is probably a concept you just can’t seem to grasp.

Yet you accuse me of having some sort of “perception”? I’m one of the few saying both sides acted horribly and equally to make the situation what it is today! Your attempt to frame it as a one-sided issue, especially by trying to use terms like ethnic cleansing and apartheid AND only applying those terms to Israel, is what we’ve been posting about the past page and a half. You’re the one who needs to take the blinders off, not I.

1734

Good, now you’ve defined the term. Thank you!

Now actually try to apply that to the state of Israel. Can you show that the state of Israel actively attempted to cleanse their land to be only their ethnic group? It’s going to be hard given what I’ve posted prior to this…

And again, how would any war between two ethnic cultures not be described as ethnic cleansing if we use it the way you’re suggesting?

Because it was applied to only one party in an attempt to frame the discussion. Why would I make the assumption that it applied to both? While I’d still argue that neither side meets the definition of ethnic cleansing, I’d be much less likely to jump on someone if they wanted to apply the term to both sides. But that’s not what happened here…

1735

But Jason, saying Israel was conducting ethnic cleansing is different than saying some Jews were conducting ethnic cleansing (and some Palestinians). The ramifications of the statements are obvious - Israel’s government is contiguous, the Jews that conducted the ethnic cleansing are either dead or very old men. The KKK tried to drive blacks out with fear, killing, and so on, and even had prominent members and backing. We don’t hold that against Obama’s administration or say “The United States was ethnically cleansing blacks through the KKK”. I just think ethnic cleansing shouldn’t have such an overwhelmingly broad stroke, or else it loses a lot of its value in communication.

1736

I’ve already explained why the treatment of blacks isn’t a case of ethnic cleansing, so I’m not sure what your point is. If you want a direct US analogy, the US government rarely, if ever, did jack against frontier citizens who committed atrocities and stole land from Native Americans as part of the cycle there; there was tactic approval. Even if the government itself did nothing directly like the Trial of Tears there’s still plenty of evidence that’d qualify.

Can you show that the state of Israel actively attempted to cleanse their land to be only their ethnic group?

Yes, they are not the same. They’re also not completely different. Again, look at post-Yugoslavia, where the states are clearly held by association and approval to have some responsibility for pre-creation acts. Serbia was correctly blamed in part for cases of ethnic cleansing that occurred before its creation, because of the association between the post-creation government and the pre-creation paramilitaries.

In the same way, Israel does bear some lingering responsibility for the shit pulled. Not because it happened and they’re Jewish, so it automatically transfers - but because there was tactic approval, post-war coordination, etc.

I don’t know enough about the 1948 war or post-creation Israel to weigh in on that, but the pre-war stuff is pretty clear.

Fun bonus implication: requiring a state actor apparently makes a lot of stuff Palestinians (do they even have an official government now?) and Arab groups have done not count.

1737

Not that it doesn’t count, it just doesn’t meet the definition of ethnic cleansing. Those are still acts of war (I prefer not to use the term terrorism, which is ill-defined and overused).

1738

Obviously some kind of crypto-flamethrowers.

I wonder what’s done with all the goods seized?

1739

When your state acts like a caricature ur doin it wrong.

1740

Israeli court convicts a Palestinian of rape by deception for using a fake Jewish name to get laid.