one person who has changed his mind on this is literally Netanyahu's former minister of defense, who is explicitly calling what is going on ethnic cleansing
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
They're functionally the same thing as the term ethnic cleansing became popularized by the West discursively as a euphemism for what happened in Bosnia
Yeah, functionally, forced mass population transfers are appreciably deadly. I do think there are distinctions to be had academically and maybe even during the early part of the war. But at this point, there's not really any getting Israel's intent.
“Ethnic cleansing” was coined as a gossamer-thin euphemism during the various conflicts in the 1990s by genocidaires seeking to avoid the “genocide” label. We all saw through it, but news outlets that didn’t want to be too accusatory just kept using it until people thought it was real parlance.
The Genocide Convention doesn't explicitly mention forced relocation, but courts have found that in practice you can't actually forcibly relocate a population without committing genocide.
On the other hand, ethnic cleansing could presumably refer to forced relocation or extermination.
Also, if you stick to the legal definition, genocide is a crime committed by an individual, while ethnic cleansing has no strict definition but generally refers to a broader phenomenon.
Of course, most people ignore the legal definition of genocide in common usage, so your mileage may vary.
I tend to see it as a “necessary but not sufficient” condition of genocide (technically not even necessary, but), but I’m also pretty sure I could not cite an example of ethnic cleansing that was not a component of a larger genocide, so it feels like an exceedingly academic distinction
Feels like the Second Amendment fetishists who argue over what the definition of “mass killing” is and whether it applied to an incident where a bunch of kids got shot, it’s not a particularly useful distinction
Fwiw, I do actually think it can be a potentially useful distinction, but at this point "ethnic cleansing" has acquired its own connotations that people try to shy away from too.
Yeah for sure. In academic use it can and is useful to differentiate between the narrow idea of transferal of a population ie what the Soviets did or what happened in Greece or Turkey, or what the Israelis aspire to re: the West Bank, and genocide, or to totally or in part destroy peoplehood.
But in colloquial usage the term has become effectively a byword for what genocide really is, for example the act on the part of Israel to make parts of Gaza quite literally uninhabitable for decades to come.
e.g. Benny Morris initially being fine with calling the Nakba ethnic cleansing and then changing his mind about it later when the term had acquired more clearly "genocide-adjacent" connotations.
if what's happening in gaza is an ethnic cleansing campaign, at the same time as it is "losing a war [they] started", then what you were actually arguing, is that ethnic cleansing is a just response to an act of war. don't pretend you said something sane.
Comments
https://bsky.app/profile/netonek0.bsky.social/post/3lim26xhmw223
Killing is one form of genocide
On the other hand, ethnic cleansing could presumably refer to forced relocation or extermination.
Of course, most people ignore the legal definition of genocide in common usage, so your mileage may vary.
There is no legal difference. Displacing communities is genocide
I am not saying that ethnic cleansing is good or should be done but you admit yourself that there is a distinction
Because it seems like that's your point.
Got it. 🥴