UN apologists: respond to this.

[innonimatu]

Leftist strategy:

1. Declare that your ideal state of affairs is possible/inevitable.

2. When it doesn't come to pass, blame whichever party you liked the least (without altering your previous estimation a whit).

3. Get amnesia and repeat.

I only wish you'd do it without dripping with condescension towards those who have to live with the consequences of your diktats.

I'd like to know what is the ideal state of affairs in that comment. What is the diktat. And who are those pool souls you are so sorry about.

 

[Perfection]

@Mouthwash, I did read those passages prior to my post. I am specifically making my stated (provisional) interpretation of those passages.

 

[Agent327]

I only wish you'd do it without dripping with condescension towards those who have to live with the consequences of your diktats.

The current state of Israel and Palestinian authority can hardly be called the result of leftist diktats - whatever that means.

The Orthodox tradition is, to me, the only authentic one, and the only one that can last. Jewish denominations aren't analogous to Christian denominations; they're really places on a spectrum of what concessions to make to the mainstream culture. Conservative and Reform are modern versions of the Hellenized Jews. Furthermore, if English-descended evangelicals can come to identify with Jewish nationalism and its associated mythology, it's hardly a stretch to assume that the Jews of antiquity could have.

It is, actually. And quite a stretch, since nationalism is a 19th century movement.

Zionism wasn't intended to displace the current occupants. There was, even until mid-century, a school of thought which argued that Jewish independence ought to be autonomy within a binational state (focusing on how early Zionists viewed the Arabs is just post hoc reasoning: it simply wasn't obvious at the time what would happen eventually).

While this may be quite true. the fact remains that no one bothered to even ask those original occupants for their opinion.

Sure. Didn't I just say that I don't trust UNESCO to preserve disputed sites objectively? My point was that they only make politically charged issues worse, and that nonpolitical sites could rely on their host countries for protection.

Seeing as UNESCO has no authority in these matters, this is basically a straw man argument. All the more so, since the destruction of sites in Mecca was mentioned - which would show that for heritage preservation purposes the country itself could be relied upon.

That would be ethnic cleansing, not genocide. Of course, ethnic cleansing can sometimes be a perfectly valid action to take- notice how all those democratic, stable countries in Central and Eastern Europe only became that way after their borders started conforming to linguistic lines?

Not even a straw man, but simply logically flawed. Those 'linguistic lines 'were the result of large displacements of people. And those 'linguistic lines'still run across borders. Ethnic cleansing is as much a war crime as genocide is. You may support it as such, but don't pretend it's something else.

 

[Lohrenswald]

So I haven't followed this thread closely and I see now discussion about ethnic cleansing so I dunno how relevant this is anymore but

I read an article on the Atlantic website that said the issue is simply that the unesco report only used the arabic name for the temple hill and not the hebrew one

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I wasn't. I really can't see what's so objectionable about forcing people to move to a different location in order to prevent a massacre.

Mass deportations are deplorable, but I concur, can sometimes be the lesser of the two evils. Now I am trying my best to keep ethnic cleansing seperate from genocide, as I consider them to be two different things, but let's take a look at some of the most significant cleansings of the 20th century.

The Balkans:

During the Balkan Wars ethnic cleansings were carried out in Kosovo, Macedonia, Sanjak and Thrace, at first directed against theMuslim population, but later extended towards Christians, involving villages burnt and people massacred.[24] The Bulgarians, Serbsand Greeks burned villages and massacred civilians of Turks, although Turkish majority areas in Bulgarian-occupied areas have still remained almost unchanged.[25][26] The Turks usually massacred the male population of Bulgarians and Greeks they reoccupied, but not the Greeks during the Second Balkan War, the women and children were also raped in each massacre and frequently slaughtered.[27]

Sino-Japanese war:

Second Sino-Japanese War, in which the Imperial Japanese Army invaded China in the 1930s. Millions of Chinese were killed, civilians and military personnel alike. The Three Alls Policy that was used by the Imperial Japanese Army resulted in the deaths of many of these Chinese. The Three Alls Policy was Kill all, Burn all Seize all

Stalin's cleansing of Ukrainians:

The Holodomor (1932-1933) is considered by many historians as a genocidal famine perpetrated on the orders of Josef Stalin that involved widespread ethnic cleansing of ethnic Ukrainians in Soviet Ukraine. Food and grain were forcibly seized from villages, internal borders between Soviet Ukraine and the Russian SSR were sealed to prevent population movement; movement was also restricted between villages and urban centers. Stalin's destruction of ethnic Ukrainians also extended to a wide-scale purge of Ukrainian intelligentsia, political elite and Party officials before and after the famine.

Croatians:

The widespread ethnic cleansing accompanying the Croatian War of Independence that was committed by Serb-led JNA and rebel militia in the occupied areas of Croatia (self-proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina) (1991–1995). Large numbers of Croats and non-Serbs were removed, either by murder, deportation or by being forced to flee. According to the ICTY indictment against Slobodan Milosevic, there was an expulsion of around 170,000 Croats and other non-Serbs from their homes.[147]

I think you see where I am getting at, no? Even when we clearly distinguish genocide from ethnic cleansings, there is still lots and lots of mass slaughter, rape and "death marches" involved in ethnic cleansing. It is not just "deportation".

So I ask you again: Do you support mass slaughter and rape in the name of "stability"?

It may be disgusting, but he is right. The Sudetenland, Bosnia, the battles between croats and serbs... all those resulted in some form of ethnic cleansing before peace was restored. Some of those ethnic cleansings were blessed by the "international community", some were criticized. The UN itself was founded by a group on countries that had agreed to ethnically cleanse germans from a lot of places in Central Europe, both as retaliation and prevention of future wars because of the example of ethnic cleansing by germans during the war. The two state solution for Israel from the start implicitly had ethnic cleansing also, it must be said.

I would much prefer to see people in conflict-torn countries put stupid differences aside and work together, forge some new kind of nationalism to keep countries united. But that is not easy, and sometimes the better solution is to separate them because not doing so leads to war and massacres instead. Or to permanent instability that reduces the countries to foreign-ruled colonies, strips its people of any control over their fate and locks them in a never-ending internal conflict (in the worst cases, never-ending civil wars). That kind of "peace-keeping" can be worse in the long run that letting them dust it off and rebuild quickly.

Having said all this, Israel's obvious problem is that they have nowhere to "cleanse" the palestinians into. So unless their plan is to go full nazi and cremate them all, they ought to finally get some sense, give them their state, and respect it. Now that years of war have destroyed the better option of a single state (which I favored and saw as possible until a few years ago), and that was Israel's doing.

He is not right. Yes, ethnic cleansings happened in all those areas. There's no need to tell me, my father's family is from Moravia (Mehren).. None of what you say is wrong. Those ethnic cleansings were condoned by the UN, with little or no intervention. The terrible mistake you make is to turn an is into an ought: Just because ethnic cleansings happened as a means to restore stability does not mean that they are the only or the best option to do so. Even if they were, which is not the case, it is still debatable whether public order really is high enough of a priority to justify mass murder or deportations.

As for your second paragraph: Clearly the problem here are not the ethnic groups somehow being in the "wrong" territories, but rather the completely arbitrary borders that now seperate much of the world, drawn by colonial Europe or the dying Ottoman empire and later reinforced by the UN. Why are you justifying literal mass slaughter in order to prevent mass slaughter without touching the root of the problem? I also disagree with your notion that all, even most of the interior conflicts being ethnic-based. Often times they were stirred up from a third party, or of a religious- or socioeconomic nature.

I don't want to get into Israel specifically, though I agree with what you are saying. My comment was regarding this sentence and this sentence only:

Of course, ethnic cleansing can sometimes be a perfectly valid action to take

 

[timtofly]

The issue is playing out like a public debate, without either side offering any suggestions, but both sides are just complaining about how life is not fair.

It seems to me that the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing, is ethnic cleansing is supposed to allow a group to leave first, where genocide removes the opportunity to do so.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The issue is playing out like a public debate, without either side offering any suggestions, but both sides are just complaining about how life is not fair.

It seems to me that the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing, is ethnic cleansing is supposed to allow a group to leave first, where genocide removes the opportunity to do so.

Well, to be fair, I never offered to have a solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. I never wanted to argue abut that, the topic I am interested in is the legitimacy of ethnic cleansings. Sure, that has little (nothing) to do with the OP, but it is an issue that came up within this thread that is worth talking about, no?

Your definition seems about right to me. However, leaving often times doesn't just mean "leaving"..As an example, remember the Herero expulsions by the German colonialists? Sure, they weren't (all) slaughtered, but sending them in the desert with no food or water is pretty much killing them, just indirectly.

 

[timtofly]

Well, to be fair, I never offered to have a solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. I never wanted to argue abut that, the topic I am interested in is the legitimacy of ethnic cleansings. Sure, that has little (nothing) to do with the OP, but it is an issue that came up within this thread that is worth talking about, no?

Your definition seems about right to me. However, leaving often times doesn't just mean "leaving"..As an example, remember the Herero expulsions by the German colonialists? Sure, they weren't (all) slaughtered, but sending them in the desert with no food or water is pretty much killing them, just indirectly.

I thought the issue was "white-washing" the use of ethnic cleansing?

The holocaust was by all definitions an attempt at ethnic cleansing. It was almost total genocide though. In the most recent cases it only turned into genocide after other attempts had failed.

Palestine before the "powers that be" at the time they gave "portions" of Palestine back to a newly forming Israeli state, was neither predominately one people group or the other. They were actual Palestinians without a recognized State. It had been under British Control. There was not even a predominate culture or religion. There were strict Muslims, and strict Christians, but it was mostly an amalgamated mix, where the lines had been blurred. The first ethnic "cleansing" was actually the Christian groups, who were forced out. The condition of being a State, means there has to be an agreeable form of government. The majority people group was Muslim.

The original Israeli State was not intended as a religious or even cultural identity. It was a Jewish national identity. An identity that was tenuous at best, even when it existed. It probably would never have even been identified except a certain group of Germans, decided to make a big deal about what being a Jew really was. Such an event was the birth of a reality that Jews could be a nationally recognized group, and not just a cultural identity.

So you have two different groups of people, one joined by religious identity, and the other by cultural identity, and then the world expects them to both act as Nations co-existing in the same land area. Neither having ever been a Nation before. Then add to that States backing both sides giving them weapons and training them in the art of war, what is supposed to happen? The most fittest group is going to come out on top, despite what any other State in the world desires, especially if all other states just leave them be. Part of the whole issue is that outside states have their own plan for the region, and for the most part has nothing to do with either of the current States. It has been that way for all of history.

 

[warpus]

The UN is of course always right or always wrong.

You're either with them, or against them. No other position is possible. You are either an apologist or a pologist.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I thought the issue was "white-washing" the use of ethnic cleansing?

The holocaust was by all definitions an attempt at ethnic cleansing. It was almost total genocide though. In the most recent cases it only turned into genocide after other attempts had failed.

Can you elaborate on this? It seems to me, that under the definition you gave me, your statement fails.

It seems to me that the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing, is ethnic cleansing is supposed to allow a group to leave first, where genocide removes the opportunity to do so.

Jews were not "allowed to leave" before the Holocaust happened. In fact they were often times obstructed in that endeavor. So the Holocaust would be seen as genocide, not ethnic cleansing.

Especially in eastern Germany though people were never given the opportunity to flee, rather they were kept in ghettos before being brought to concentration/death camps.

 

[timtofly]

Ethnic cleansing : the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society.

Genocide : the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

It looks to me like they both mean the same thing. The only difference is that the "white washing" of Ethnic cleansing, makes it more acceptable. Ethnic cleansing is not acceptable because it still involves killings on a mass scale. To the Germans, they thought they were doing the world a favor by skipping the expulsion part, and they avoided putting the burden on other nations.

I am not sure that Ethnic cleansing actually states up front, leave or be killed, it is just not as overt in stopping the leaving process, or unable to. It seems to me that after a lot of people have been killed the rest seem to figure it out that they need to leave or be killed. A lot of Jews in Germany did leave, and made it past the Germans who were preventing them from leaving. It was still Ethnic cleansing, and Ethnic cleansing still involves genocide.

The Syrian civil war has been going on for years, before the massive last exodus of millions of refugees. That was not because the government was winning, but they may be loosing and the latest rebels seem to have no interest in their well being. It is hard to tell before this point and even before the war began if it was an intentional Ethnic cleansing or plain genocide. That does not mean in decades to come that humans won't try to figure out what it exactly was.

Just as in most wars to the victor goes the spoils. To the winner of a genocide goes the title of either Ethnic cleansing or genocide. I am not sure how one can declare before it happens how it is going to turn out.

 

[Traitorfish]

That would be ethnic cleansing, not genocide.

I wouldn't lend too much weight to that distinction, given that it was originally drawn by people who were, in fact, carrying out a genocide.

Of course, ethnic cleansing can sometimes be a perfectly valid action to take- notice how all those democratic, stable countries in Central and Eastern Europe only became that way after their borders started conforming to linguistic lines?

Well, the first thing that happened was the Second World War, so I'm not sure if there's really a strong correlation at work.

The current state of Israel and Palestinian authority can hardly be called the result of leftist diktats - whatever that means.

Unless Mouthwash means that the State of Israel was founded by militant socialists, a fact which I can only imagine is the source of some considerable annoyance.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, Mouthwash, doesn't the state of Israel occupy the Al-Aqsa? Does it own it, in your view? Is there no palestinian territory at all?
Don't act like lack of recognition of israeli occupation of Palestine is a new thing; that country has been condemned in loads of UN resolutions, which would have had actual effect if the US didn't keep vetoing everything.

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't that a bit like saying "my giant paper wings would work, if it wasn't for gravity"?

The US defending its close allies isn't the system failing, it's just the system, and I imagine those proposing the resolutions are well aware of that. If they expected their resolutions to have any direct impact on Israel, they'd be far more cautious.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, yes. But the euphemism of a system has failed too

I am not even seeing why the US govs support the israeli state so much. It creates a double standard which only perpetuates one of the lamest conflicts and one of the bloodiest in the civilized world, going on for decades. I am sure many israeli people also feel that the govs they had which created this mess are a terrible idea, but apparently the slim majority there is still warmongering. People like Sharon and Netanyahu should never have got the power they did.
Only political reason one can think of would be as a means of maintaining the useful autocrats in Saudi and tied states, by having the muslims all around locked in conflict or animosity. Yet the petrol is bound to run out in the future as well.

 

[tetley]

I am not even seeing why the US govs support the israeli state so much.

Religion. Unfortunately. (and I speak as someone who is religious)

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, yes. But the euphemism of a system has failed too

I am not even seeing why the US govs support the israeli state so much. It creates a double standard which only perpetuates one of the lamest conflicts and one of the bloodiest in the civilized world, going on for decades. I am sure many israeli people also feel that the govs they had which created this mess are a terrible idea, but apparently the slim majority there is still warmongering. People like Sharon and Netanyahu should never have got the power they did.
Only political reason one can think of would be as a means of maintaining the useful autocrats in Saudi and tied states, by having the muslims all around locked in conflict or animosity. Yet the petrol is bound to run out in the future as well.

What's the alternative? None of the countries that could really make life difficult for the Americans are going to do so over Palestine, while none of the countries willing to do so have much power to act on it, and would still be hostile to the United States if the entire territory of Mandatory Palestine was one big salt-water lagoon. Domestically, both major parties and most influential politicians have nothing to gain from criticising Israel and a lot to loose, while the American public range from content to indifferent to this arrangement, so there's no incentive for change their either. It doesn't require the Saudis or the Evangelicals or the "Jewish lobby" to describe Washington's continued support for Israel, not so long as there's no clear incentive for anybody to change anything.

 

[timtofly]

Religion. Unfortunately. (and I speak as someone who is religious)

Are you saying that the religious minority is what drives the Nation of Israel? If this was the Religious Diversity Thread, Israel is in the middle, and religion is tolerated, not a given. Unless you know something the rest of the World does not know, Israel is still a secular state. Please point out why your reasoning is so unfortunate. I think there seems to be some sort of "wish" that this reality of Israel, can just be relegated to some religious experience.

 

[JollyRoger]

I really can't see what's so objectionable about forcing people to move to a different location in order to prevent a massacre.

What location do you think we should force the Israeli Jewish population to move to?

 

[Ajidica]

So where have we gotten in this thread beyond a consensus this draft resolution is silly and that we are all shocked a guy who is in favor of creating Bantustans in American cities happens to be in favor of ethnic cleansing?