I always saw the difference being kinda like the difference between manslaughter and murder. With ethnic cleansing you are just trying to get rid of anyone who's "not you", but that doesn't mean you necessarily want to kill them, you just want them gone. Of course, there will be some killings, but murder isn't necessarily the goal, just like with manslaughter.
Obviously with genocide, simply getting rid of all the "not yous" isn't good enough. In a genocide they absolutely must die by any means necessary. In other words, there is an intent to kill, just like with murder.
I'm not sure if there's ever been a genocide in which the persecuting parties have killed on principle, and not simply because it was the most expedient way to remove the persecuted group from their territory. Even the Nazis didn't start killing Jews and Roma on what we might now think of as a "genocidal" scale until they invaded the Soviet Union, and they found themselves with a large Jewish population whose only route of escape was into countries with which they were at war.
I'm not sure if there's ever been a genocide in which the persecuting parties have killed on principle, and not simply because it was the most expedient way to remove the persecuted group from their territory.
As commodore says genocide and ethnical cleansing are very different things in the sense of not being in the same category of concepts in the same way as manslaughter and murder are not. All genocides are ethnical cleansings but not all ethnical cleansings are genocides. Genocide being the most brutal mean to achieve ethnical cleansing.
In fact the UN defines genocide very accurately as the premeditated attempt to physically destroy a whole group in a given country be it by killing, sterilising, or even abducting children. Ethnical cleansing on the other hand is a more general concept which in a lesser degree usually means expulsion of a region (for instance expulsion of jews from Spain) but also can imply genocide in the most severe form (Rwanda or Nazi genocides being obvious cases where the persecuting parties killed in principle IMO)
That's rather my point. Genocidaires, as a very general rule, set out with the belief that they are dealing with a practical problem using the means at their disposable. They're rarely out to spill blood for the sake of spilling blood. I don't think there's much value in worrying overmuch about their principles, as opposed to the actions they take.
I agree, but the it would probably fall short of what the term "genocide" connotes to most people, as a proportion of the total Jewish population. At that stage, death resulted mostly from the indifference and incompetence of the Nazi government, rather than deliberate malice- from overcrowding, overwork, from malnutrition and disease. The Nazi administration absolutely pursued policies it knew and expected to lead to deaths, but didn't set out with those deaths as the end goal, but as a happy side-effect. It's only in 1942 and the drafting of the "final solution" that the physical destruction of European Jewry becomes explicit policy, so if we're adopting a "manslaughter/murder" distinction between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide", then the Holocaust does not qualify until that point. It's precisely because the scale of destruction before 1942 was so grand- not just the physical destruction, but the destruction of the intangible qualities that constitute a nation or ethnicity, their language, culture, religion and institutions- that I'm sceptical of the idea that we can drawn a hard line between draconian population management and "true" genocide.
The downing of an Israeli F-16 by Syrian air defenses two weeks ago was due to pilot error, an investigation carried out by the Israel Air Force published Sunday found.
I agree, but the it would probably fall short of what the term "genocide" connotes to most people, as a proportion of the total Jewish population. At that stage, death resulted mostly from the indifference and incompetence of the Nazi government, rather than deliberate malice- from overcrowding, overwork, from malnutrition and disease.
True, but the Einsatzgruppen had started their work earlier than that. Going through villages, rounding people up and shooting them is pretty damn genocidal.
Well, I differ here in that I see the policy of ghettoization as pretty clearly a deliberate policy of extermination-by-starvation.
[...]
True, but the Einsatzgruppen had started their work earlier than that. Going through villages, rounding people up and shooting them is pretty damn genocidal.
These claims are both in line with what I'm arguing, that there's no clear line between attempts to forcefully shape the ethnic makeup of a territory and outright extermination, that it's a question of methods rather than of fundamental intention. That so much of what the Nazis did before 1941 isn't proof that they'd been anticipating the Final Solution the whole time, but rather that the Final Solution was the logical extension of Nazi practice going back to 1933.
These claims are both in line with what I'm arguing, that there's no clear line between attempts to forcefully shape the ethnic makeup of a territory and outright extermination, that it's a question of methods rather than of fundamental intention. That so much of what the Nazis did before 1941 isn't proof that they'd been anticipating the Final Solution the whole time, but rather that the Final Solution was the logical extension of Nazi practice going back to 1933.
With the strong caveat that it does not imply any equivalence between the Holocaust and (and with the weaker caveat that I'm a little uncomfortable with the term "Nakba", because I don't really see what use it has in English-language discourse except to imply such an equivalence): yes, there is no clear or hard distinction between the expulsion of Palestinians from the State of Israel and genocide, just as there was no clear or hard distinction between the expulsion of North Africa and Middle East from genocide. Genocide, I suppose is my fundamental argument, is a constitutive function of the national state.
I may have a sympathy for Israeli Jews unbecoming of a supposed political radical, but I'm under no illusions that the state is anything other than a moral black hole, regardless of its alleged ethnic or political character.
actually it didn't take Israeli authorities two days to delete news that Syrians SAMs had flown over Israel and harmlessly fell into the sea , because it suggests missiles maybe can not be intercepted with 100% certainity and perhaps people should discuss Peace with Arabs , that kind of thing .
a quick check in Wikipedia offers a relief , no need to worry about the guy's health ...
Spoiler:
... with him being listed as an advisor to the Israeli Goverment . Of Netanyahu , so possibly tribe ascendant or whatever . Not that ı was really concerned , with so glowing mentions of Ariel Sharon in places . The "Butcher of Beirut" or whatever might well be the only Israeli general known by the Turkish public afterall . Will not dismiss the book at all , nowadays it's rare my "strategic look" on stuff is "challenged" ; getting older and more obnoxious , brain cells dying and leaving no extra place to learn kind of thing . But it happened in that book . That "SAM arrays" is strategic target , when demolished they force an enemy Goverment to seek peace . Might have believed it , too . Impressive or something , when some guy says it's nothing of the sort . A SAM array tore Sinai from Israel in effect ; so they spent a lot of effort to knock out Syria's . Damascus was supposed to surrender , being left in the mercy of Israeli airpower , as if they could really go Douhet and bomb entire cities flat .
and it's nothing to be laughed at or something ; now that there's the slightest hint that Western Europeans could believe it or something . According to this , when Israelis destroyed those 19 batteries of Syria in 1982 , Russians panicked and started Perestroika . Believing their entire military investments forfeit ... Basing this on one single post ı saw in some aviation forum . Naturally some heroic German by the name of Matthias Rust proves it once more , too . And all Russia falls like castle made from glass . Had we in CFC have the same level of Polish participation , we would have heard it was Lech Valesa ; supported by anectodes on his years as the Governor of Casablanca from Western members . Americans would claim it was the Star Wars that finally broke the bank and so on . Of course , they would be all wrong ; because it was the Turkish minority in Bulgaria that was the last straw . In 1985 , as the final step of forcible re-naming of peoples , everybody was required to change their "Turkish" names into "Bulgarian" ones . It happened to Pomaks in (ı think) 1978 . It was carefully monitored in Moscow and there wasn't the expected amount of begging so Sofia started expelling who could be troublemakers in later times . Santa Turgut (being a typical politician) challenged Jivkov , the head of State in Bulgaria , to send more . If Jivkov wanted he , too , could come . That Santa Turgut would make Jivkov sit on his backside , you know , with one slap on the face and the Bulgarian would fall to the ground . So , a flood of people in 1989 of 250 000 to 300 , so Santa Turgut had to close the borders . Mind you , still not the expected amount of begging . So , all the Czechs and Germans saw that times had changed , if you made trouble , you now would be kicked out instead of shot ...
minorities and their handling is a thing and amazingly Spector wants to confom to the 242 ... So that they can establish the Jewish State . ı have no idea what's that down there , in daily usage and belief . No problem , r16 has an answer for anything . It means a "change" : Israel is no longer expected to be the State for the Jews ; it's to become the State of the Jews . As a simple example when this Chomsky dude slurs Tel Aviv with claims of gross Human Rights violations against the Palestinians , Tel Aviv will send its people and arrest the guy , not ask America to write negative editorials in all the media . In return for that , they are ready give away the West Bank and Gazze . Despite everybody knowing that they won't , there are always enough beardies , Jihadis , whatever to bomb some Israeli kindergarten . Simply , Tel Aviv can not give away land , because "Christians" will then replace the Israeli Goverment . Tel Aviv has amassed some power and influence and might resist and it would be some fireworks . But then , ı can't look forward to that , because you know , it's really inhuman to comtemplate what will happen . While there are still people who lived through the first one . Evil ? It really exists , and it is not limited to "Muslims" alone .
hmm , so short ? Maybe , ı should link that page from the Jerusalem Post that infers it's the fault of the crew . That they didn't fight good enough . Afterall , Israelis have flown thousands of bombing sorties in Syria and it never happened before . The full sentence goes
ISRAEL RARELY comments on foreign reports of military activity in Syria but IAF Air Division Brig.-Gen. Amnon Ein-Dar admitted that the IAF has carried out thousands of missions over the wartorn country in the past year alone. Israel has admitted to carrying out at least 100 air strikes on Hezbollah targets in Syria.
sA-5 blamed , because it's an antique Russians will not be able to sell , while SA-17(?) could be provided to a whole bunch of peole , "limiting" the options of whatever Party is in Power in Tel Aviv . Afterall Netanyahu happens to be the guy in whose name a computer program was written , solving the secret codes in "Tevrat" as it's in Turkish . Among other things , a prophecy that Israel would fight a nuclear war with a modern power to its North and it needed some glorious leadership . The Holy Book "said" Bibi and no one else ...
and yeah , when grumbling arose against the Goverments of late 1990s that they were idiots to give tank modernization contracts to Israel . So expensive that each one costed more than a brand new one . Ukraine ready to give away the whole T-80 project , half of the factory kind of thing , Russia offering a 3 man turret , whole Western style too , despite all the experts will now jump up and down to say that's impossible . And like 5 years of delays , too . Since we all saw in Syria that tanks can like even win a Civil War , right ? So , the prophecy comes even here . Lebanon is nothing and Russias are banktrupt , got the drift ?
don't know why the urgency and the like , as if America was any braver back then . Afterall am not a military expert , just a pseudo one . So ı wasn't confused at all , but it's still amazing . In Afrin they finally completed the Crescent ! That horsebandit trick , you know ... The seperatists are now ruined ! Instead of circling the town by armoured pincers in a week (at most) they have taken a month and more , but they are now averaging 15 sq kilometers of "Conquest" per day ... Why , still beats thunder runs in Turkish towns , huh ?
So? It's either a dishonest or totally idiotic portrayal of the situation since 1990 as well. One of the fun things about the settlements is that plenty are illegal even under Israeli law, but the Israeli government winks at that and defends the illegal settlements for the most part as if they're legal, which lets them fool credulous people like the author(s) of that article into thinking there hasn't been any meaningful settlement expansion since the 1990s.
There is no marked flattening out of the process since 1990, except arguably in East Jerusalem and judging from the total population line that hasn't mattered much.
Where is the population growing? Places like Ma'ale Adumim, Modi'in Illit, etc are right next to the green line and would certainly be annexed to Israel under the most generous 'peace' agreement. Look at the numbers here - all of the double-digit settlements, with the exception of Ariel, are very close to Israel proper (and Ariel has hardly grown over a span of two decades).
Keep in mind that the settlements have a lot of open space and more people doesn't necessarily correlate with land loss. You don't want to set up shop ten meters away from people looking to kill you.
Additionally the lived reality for Palestinians has inarguably gotten worse since the 1990s.
I'm not sure if there's ever been a genocide in which the persecuting parties have killed on principle, and not simply because it was the most expedient way to remove the persecuted group from their territory. Even the Nazis didn't start killing Jews and Roma on what we might now think of as a "genocidal" scale until they invaded the Soviet Union, and they found themselves with a large Jewish population whose only route of escape was into countries with which they were at war.
And if they merely expressed a desire to kill on principle? Charters aside, there is a general acceptance in the Palestinian mainstream that any and all killings are justified in the name of driving out the invaders, and a significant fraction of the population believes the end times will be heralded by their mass slaughter of Jews.
I may have a sympathy for Israeli Jews unbecoming of a supposed political radical, but I'm under no illusions that the state is anything other than a moral black hole, regardless of its alleged ethnic or political character.
So if the Jews of the area began independently, as stateless communities, running their Arab neighbors out of Palestine, you'd reconsider your position?
And if they merely expressed a desire to kill on principle? Charters aside, there is a general acceptance in the Palestinian mainstream that any and all killings are justified in the name of driving out the invaders, and a significant fraction of the population believes the end times will be heralded by their mass slaughter of Jews.
See the bolded. Beyond a few religious zealots, even the most bloodthirsty Palestinians are not in favour of Jew-killing for the sake of principle alone. They regard such killings as practical measures towards a desired outcome; if every Israeli Jew were to pack their bags and ship out to Wyoming tomorrow, that would achieve the same end.
So if the Jews of the area began independently, as stateless communities, running their Arab neighbors out of Palestine, you'd reconsider your position?
See the bolded. Beyond a few religious zealots, even the most bloodthirsty Palestinians are not in favour of Jew-killing for the sake of principle alone. They regard such killings as practical measures towards a desired outcome; if every Israeli Jew were to pack their bags and ship out to Wyoming tomorrow, that would achieve the same end.
You just said that you were sympathetic to Israelis, but still condemned their state's expulsion of Arabs on the grounds that it is a state. Would you still condemn it if they were expelled by Jewish mobs, unbacked by any government?
Yes, and I do think that the intentions of Palestinian ultra-nationalists can be reasonably described as genocidal (if not as remotely realistic). My claim is only that the Palestinian ultra-nationalists are not in favour of killing Jews simply for the sake of killing Jews, but as a measure towards removing the Jewish population from the territory of the old Mandate.
You just said that you were sympathetic to Israelis, but still condemned their state's expulsion of Arabs on the grounds that it is a state. Would you still condemn it if they were expelled by Jewish mobs, unbacked by any government?
I don't condemn the Israeli state because it's a state, rather, I claim that it does things demanding condemnation because it is a state. States tend to degrade the moral reasoning of their participants, and because participation involves the exercise of power, the outcome is very generally injustice.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
