I'd like to know what is the ideal state of affairs in that comment.
The notion that a binational state after 1948 was conceivable.
See above.
And who are those pool souls you are so sorry about.
The people who would suffer tremendously if your suggestion were implemented.
@Mouthwash, I did read those passages prior to my post. I am specifically making my stated (provisional) interpretation of those passages.
It's a wrong interpretation. If I put the word "Palestine" in quotations, one might reasonably assume I don't recognize it as a state or a legitimate entity. Same goes for "Israel."
The current state of Israel and Palestinian authority can hardly be called the result of leftist diktats - whatever that means.
Of course not. That doesn't stop leftists from making them, however.
Seeing as UNESCO has no authority in these matters, this is basically a straw man argument.
Why? I'm arguing against those that think the UN (and by extension UNESCO) ought to have more authority.
Those 'linguistic lines' were the result of large displacements of people.
Certainly.
And those 'linguistic lines' still run across borders.
To a much smaller extent than before.
Ethnic cleansing is as much a war crime as genocide is.
Yes, the UN defines it as a war crime. But I've already made my position on how seriously the UN should be taken clear.
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 the
Muslim 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".
The Israeli actions in 1948 weren't even close to any of your examples. The
Deir Yassin Massacre is generally considered the worst atrocity of the war.
Keep in mind, the Haganah didn't actually expel Arabs as a matter of policy; a large part (over 150,000) of them remained in the country afterwards. I can't think of a single other instance of ethnic cleansing where that was the case.
So I ask you again: Do you support mass slaughter and rape in the name of "stability"?
No.
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.
Not everywhere, but under certain circumstances. Modern Europe doesn't live under those circumstances, so they find it harder to understand why these actions would be taken.
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.
Spoken like someone who has never had to live with sectarian violence.
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.
Plenty of mutually hostile ethnic groups were (and still are) intermingled with each other.
Why are you justifying literal mass slaughter in order to prevent mass slaughter without touching the root of the problem?
I'm not.
I also disagree with your notion that all, even most of the interior conflicts being ethnic-based.
I don't know where you heard that 'notion,' but it certainly wasn't mine. My sole argument is that ethnic cleansing can be a useful tool for solving ethnic conflicts.
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.
I see. Well, since those terms are untrustworthy, we'll have to invent our own. Henceforth, "the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous" shall be known as "giving food to the hungry," while "the intentional action to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group" shall be known as "healing the sick."
I support giving food to the hungry but not healing the sick, and you may quote me on that.
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.
When the Soviet Union fell, did you see Germans rioting in Poland, and Germany moving its armed forces in to protect them? I suspect that the reason you didn't was because there were no more Germans in Poland.
I am not even seeing why the US govs support the israeli state so much.
Originally it was to counter the pro-Soviet governments in Syria and Egypt, which was part of the broader strategy of kicking the Soviets out of the eastern Mediterranean (Camp David showed just how much the Egyptians had shifted into the American camp). Right now, it's because Israel stabilizes the region- it keeps the violence in Syria contained, crushes militants in the Sinai alongside the Egyptians, pretty much guarantees Jordan's survival, provides a great deal of intelligence, etc. America has every reason to keep supporting it.
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.
Death tolls of major conflicts of the past few decades, using the lower estimates:
Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
21,500 (since 1965)
Boko Haram insurgency:
28,800 (since 2009)
Kurdish-Turkish conflict:
45,000
Iraqi Civil War:
50,000
Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict:
70,000
Invasion of Iraq:
100,000
Moro conflict:
120,000
Burmese Civil War:
130,000
Chechen Wars:
130,000
Yugoslav Wars:
140,000
Iran-Iraq War:
150,000
Colombian conflict:
220,000
Syrian Civil War:
420,000
Sudanese Civil War:
1,000,000 - 2,000,000 (since 1983)
Wars in Afghanistan:
1,400,000 - 2,000,000 (since 1978)
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.
Yeah, I'm sure that many Frenchmen are still loyal to the Capetian dynasty. It's just a slim majority that manages to keep those dirty republicans in powers.
(Meanwhile, Meretz is the only opposition party in the Knesset still actively pushing for a Palestinian state, and it's by far the smallest one.)
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.
This isn't coherent enough for me to be sure, but it sounds an awful lot like the "Zionist conspiracy is responsible for the leader/faction I oppose" drivel that Arabs say.
What I've learned is that Mouthwash is either a liar or shockingly ignorant, though that's true of almost every Zionist I've ever encountered. Palestinian obstinacy? What legitimate right do the Zionists have to govern one square inch of Palestine?
So by using a term meaning "someone who thinks Jews should have sovereignty" in place of Jews, you can deny advocating that land be tied to race? Let me try that out: the "Turkish nationalists" have no right to govern Anatolia. Let's deport them back to their proper homeland in Xinjiang!
"Not is of relevant".
