Yes, but their intentions are a forced migration or population transfer. Saying cleaning or genocide means the wholesale murder of the population. So you’re using loaded language which is weakening your argument.
Israel has made it clear they no longer welcome Palestinians along their border. They have been working with neighbors to accept them and essentially the two state option is no longer an option. That isn’t ethnic cleansing or genocide, that is a population transfer.
Now had both sides worked together and forged a diplomatic relationship the two state option would have been successful, but that didn’t occur. Both sides were continually hostile to one another. Now the Palestinian people are going to be relocated and will once again be stateless.
Forced relocation of the population, is ethnic cleansing by definition.
I’m using dictionary definitions, internationally agreed definitions, I’m using the words as their intended in international law and in common usage. I believe that strengthens my argument
That’s loaded language which is a falsification what is actually occurring.
We all agree that Israel wants to relocate the Palestinian people outside of their border. It’s agreed that Israel has no intention of murdering or enslaving the population. That’s not cleansing, that’s a forced migration or population transfer.
We all know why you want to use loaded language because it generates a image in the minds of low information people of murder and enslavement.
Ethnically cleansing an area, is ensuring an ethnicity is removed, or cleansed from the area.
I’m sorry you disagree with the dictionary, reality must be really difficult to deal with. But we have to deal with the reality we’re presented with, and not the reality we would like
I did not agree with you on either of those statements.
You haven’t brought it up, but I might as well head off the next issue, it is a genocide:
They were bolded because i was using the same rhetorical device the other commenter was using right back at them, telling your speaking partner that they agreed to something they haven’t agreed to
I can only use the definitions in the dictionary, in the Wikipedia, and the UN. I’m not going to go with your off-the-cuff rejection of the dictionary.
Ethnic cleansing is a component of genocide.
I think the politicians and diplomats who got together in 1948 were cognizant of that.
Consider
You ethnically cleanse a population, they resist, fighting breaks out. The ethnic cleansing moves into a pogrom, repeat… Genocide.
Yes, but their intentions are a forced migration or population transfer. Saying cleaning or genocide means the wholesale murder of the population. So you’re using loaded language which is weakening your argument.
Israel has made it clear they no longer welcome Palestinians along their border. They have been working with neighbors to accept them and essentially the two state option is no longer an option. That isn’t ethnic cleansing or genocide, that is a population transfer.
Now had both sides worked together and forged a diplomatic relationship the two state option would have been successful, but that didn’t occur. Both sides were continually hostile to one another. Now the Palestinian people are going to be relocated and will once again be stateless.
ethnic cleansing Wiktionary
The mass expulsion or killing of people belonging to one ethnic group by those of another.
It seems we’re using different definitions of ethnic cleansing. I present to you the dictionary and Wikipedia.
Wikipedia
Forced relocation of the population, is ethnic cleansing by definition.
I’m using dictionary definitions, internationally agreed definitions, I’m using the words as their intended in international law and in common usage. I believe that strengthens my argument
That’s loaded language which is a falsification what is actually occurring.
We all agree that Israel wants to relocate the Palestinian people outside of their border. It’s agreed that Israel has no intention of murdering or enslaving the population. That’s not cleansing, that’s a forced migration or population transfer.
We all know why you want to use loaded language because it generates a image in the minds of low information people of murder and enslavement.
It’s literally the definition of the phrase.
Ethnically cleansing an area, is ensuring an ethnicity is removed, or cleansed from the area.
I’m sorry you disagree with the dictionary, reality must be really difficult to deal with. But we have to deal with the reality we’re presented with, and not the reality we would like
I did not agree with you on either of those statements.
You haven’t brought it up, but I might as well head off the next issue, it is a genocide:
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
It is agreed that it is a genocide
curiously enough, bolding your words doesnt make them true. funny, innit?
They were bolded because i was using the same rhetorical device the other commenter was using right back at them, telling your speaking partner that they agreed to something they haven’t agreed to
I dunno, I went back and read through the comments again to see if I had misinterpreted it and it really just seems like you two are splitting hairs.
No, it is not tribal murder. Genocide means racial or tribal murder. Use the correct language.
I can only use the definitions in the dictionary, in the Wikipedia, and the UN. I’m not going to go with your off-the-cuff rejection of the dictionary.
Latin, a language used for thousands of years is far from off-the-cuff.
It’s pointless for us to argue over dictionary definitions.