NationStates Jolt Archive

If the IDF are 'advising' people to leave Southern Lebanon in the face of death and destruction, and then refusing to allow them back later (one of the issues with the UN ceasefire proposal) for strategic reasons, is it not a textbook definition of ethnic cleansing?

Discuss.

In four or more posts sees I a flame of great height, which cannot be vanquished, no the matter the might.

Emmmm...only if they intend never let them back. (I think)

In four posts sees I a flame of great height, which cannot be vanquished, no the matter the might.

Thats not the intent, but Fisk made a good point about it today. Its a forceful driving of innocent civilians off their land with the apparent intention of not allowing them back. Just wondering peoples opinions on this and how it will inevetibly be denied/justified.

If the IDF are 'advising' people to leave Southern Lebanon in the face of death and destruction, and then refusing to allow them back later (one of the issues with the UN ceasefire proposal) for strategic reasons, is it not a textbook definition of ethnic cleansing?

Discuss.

I guess...

Although "total" is a better describer (maybe)...

Hmm... (puts a lot of thought in to it. Head explodes.)

Aww... I need that...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it looks like the prediction was WRONG! Noone can tell the future! Submit to the truth! I AM SUPERIOR TO YOU ALL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

jk... or am I?:D

Thats not the intent, but Fisk made a good point about it today. Its a forceful driving of innocent civilians off their land with the apparent intention of not allowing them back. Just wondering peoples opinions on this and how it will inevetibly be denied/justified.

Justification = they are US allies. The American public doesnt give a fuck how many they kill, or even why most of the time. And as the US has the veto and intends to back them in seemingly most enterprises, thats all she wrote.

As a sidenote though, it gives you an idea of just how harsh the Burmese, Chinese or the Indonesians are, who don't have to operate under the same scrutiny or accountability.

----------------------------

And it looks like the prediction was WRONG! Noone can tell the future! Submit to the truth! I AM SUPERIOR TO YOU ALL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

jk... or am I?:D
Nope. It still has a chance.

:rolleyes:

Listen carefully, they will let them back later after all this is over, but no one would want to return now during all this chaos to get bombed again.

Anyone who would could be part of the Hezbollah bringing more weapons in etc... so it is a safe precaution to bar people from coming back in for a while.

:rolleyes:

Listen carefully, they will let them back later after all this is over, but no one would want to return now during all this chaos to get bombed again.

Anyone who would could be part of the Hezbollah bringing more weapons in etc... so it is a safe precaution to bar people from coming back in for a while.

but isreal are refusing to allow the refugees back as part of the peace accord the UN is drawing up. thats the point of the question

but isreal are refusing to allow the refugees back as part of the peace accord the UN is drawing up. thats the point of the question

Russia (the defender of small nations?) has said it will veto any proposal that does not have the approval of Lebanon.

As long as the Israelis give those refugees a suitable place to stay in Israel then I see no problem but if they expect those refugees to fend for themselves while saying they can never go back to southern Lebanon, then it would seem like ethnic cleansing of a sort I spoze.

It is ethnic cleansing by default. I am always more interested in results, rather than intentions.

It is ethnic cleansing by default. I am always more interested in results, rather than intentions.

but what are the intentions here? a buffer of ketushia + 1 km and if you happen to live in that band, not anymore you don't.

its not rwanda i will concede, but its nasty and against the rules.

As long as the Israelis give those refugees a suitable place to stay in Israel .

Yeah, and free snowmobiles to get there on......

Yeah, and free snowmobiles to get there on......

Nah, they'll just throw the refugees into the Occupied Territories then it's business as usual.

If the IDF are 'advising' people to leave Southern Lebanon in the face of death and destruction, and then refusing to allow them back later (one of the issues with the UN ceasefire proposal) for strategic reasons, is it not a textbook definition of ethnic cleansing?

Discuss.

No it is not a text book definition of Ethnic Cleansing.

Justification = they are US allies. The American public doesnt give a fuck how many they kill, or even why most of the time. And as the US has the veto and intends to back them in seemingly most enterprises, thats all she wrote.

That is most decidedly incorrect dear sir. The American public does care how many people are killed. Why do you think alot of us want a cease-fire?

No it is not a text book definition of Ethnic Cleansing.

so either

a: explain why it isnt or

b: offer another definition.

Russia (the defender of small nations?) has said it will veto any proposal that does not have the approval of Lebanon.

And there goes any chance of a UN sanctioned cease-fire.

so either

a: explain why it isnt or

b: offer another definition.

The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

Now let us look at the definition. They are not systematiclly eliminating an ethnic group from the region. So that eliminates that. They are not deporting people either. There is no forced emigration and they sure are not committing genocide.

By definition, Israel is not committing ethnic cleansing.

The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

Now let us look at the definition. They are not systematiclly eliminating an ethnic group from the region. So that eliminates that. They are not deporting people either. There is no forced emigration and they sure are not committing genocide.

By definition, Israel is not committing ethnic cleansing.

ethnic cleansing and genocide are two different phenomenon. im not accusing them of the latter.

but surely this situation is forced emigration, as per your definition? 'leave your homes or we reserve the right to kill you'.

and the clincher is they apparently are reluctant to let the refugees back after hostilities have ceased.

ethnic cleansing and genocide are two different phenomenon. im not accusing them of the latter.

By definition, they are the samething.

but surely this situation is forced emigration, as per your definition? 'leave your homes or we reserve the right to kill you'.

Since they are not occupying the lands where they are telling people to get out of because they are going to be bombing it, no it is not forced emigration.

and the clincher is they apparently are reluctant to let the refugees back after hostilities have ceased.

We are just going to see how this one plays out.

By definition, they are the samething.



Since they are not occupying the lands where they are telling people to get out of because they are going to be bombing it, no it is not forced emigration.


you are making no sense.

by defenition they are not the same. there was ethnic cleansing but no genocide in northern ireland in 1969. moving a mass of people on =/= killing them off. just noticed there is a thread on the semantics of the phrase elsewhere.

its not forced because they are dopping bombs rather than using bayonetts?

you are taking a contrarian position for the sake of it, and not a very good one at that.

Since they are not occupying the lands where they are telling people to get out of because they are going to be bombing it, no it is not forced emigration.



I think you should win a prize of some ornateness and beauty for this line.

If the IDF are 'advising' people to leave Southern Lebanon in the face of death and destruction, and then refusing to allow them back later (one of the issues with the UN ceasefire proposal) for strategic reasons, is it not a textbook definition of ethnic cleansing?

Discuss.
The Cease Fire hasn't happened. Didn't 40 more people die today??? I would wait for the actual war to be OVER before allowing them back in. Which is more logical.

Allowing them to come back where they could

A. Bring support for the enemy.
B. Get in the way.
or
C. End up getting killed in the crossfire.

Or keep them away from the area and.
A. Deny a Human Shield for the enemy.
B. Not have to worry about hitting innocents by mistake.
or
C.No confusion on who is the enemy, since those who didn't take sides wouldn't tend to stick around in a warzone.

If the IDF are 'advising' people to leave Southern Lebanon in the face of death and destruction, and then refusing to allow them back later (one of the issues with the UN ceasefire proposal) for strategic reasons, is it not a textbook definition of ethnic cleansing?

Discuss.

It's not ethnic cleansing unless you're moving them out and then moving in your own settlers.

Highly doubtful that Israel will settle anything but active duty troops there. So that doesn't count as ethnic cleansing.

It does count as a responsible warning to civilians. Better than just killing them without warning.

It's not ethnic cleansing unless you're moving them out and then moving in your own settlers

Highly doubtful that Israel will settle anything but active duty troops there. So that doesn't count as ethnic cleansing.

probably not, but its still a deliberate targetting of civilians for an illegal expulsion with the express intention of keeping their land for whatever purpose. that to me is ethnic cleansing

It does count as a responsible warning to civilians. Better than just killing them without warning.

they tried that tactic last week and realised that the Israeli public wouldnt accept that sort of behaviour

probably not, but its still a deliberate targetting of civilians for an illegal expulsion with the express intention of keeping their land for whatever purpose. that to me is ethnic cleansing



they tried that tactic last week and realised that the Israeli public wouldnt accept that sort of behaviour

They aren't intending to keep the land. If they aren't intending to keep the land and they aren't planning to keep them off the land forever then it's not cleansing or any other garbage. All further arguments are useless.

They aren't intending to keep the land. If they aren't intending to keep the land and they aren't planning to keep them off the land forever then it's not cleansing or any other garbage. All further arguments are useless.

if they arent intending to keep the land, why is a major bone of contention in the UN plan that they are refusing to allow the indigenous population back in after hostilities?

maybe 'keep' is too strong. control the land by proxy or something may be more accurate. but its the same basic premise. its a land grab and its being described as ethnic cleansing.

so the OP is, is it ethnic cleansing and if so, why is it being tolerated

if they arent intending to keep the land, why is a major bone of contention in the UN plan that they are refusing to allow the indigenous population back in after hostilities?

maybe 'keep' is too strong. control the land by proxy or something may be more accurate. but its the same basic premise. its a land grab and its being described as ethnic cleansing.
It's not a land grab. The UN plan hasn't happened, Israel is not going to jump the gun before this ends.

Should those who evacuated New Orleans been allowed in the day after Katrina?

They are not allowing them to return because it's not safe to return. Remember there is a WAR going on.
Where are you getting this "Israel says that they can NEVER come back" from?

It's not a land grab. The UN plan hasn't happened, Israel is not going to jump the gun before this ends.

Should those who evacuated New Orleans been allowed in the day after Katrina?

They are not allowing them to return because it's not safe to return. Remember there is a WAR going on.
Where are you getting this "Israel says that they can NEVER come back" from?

but the IDF ordered them out in the first place. under threat of death if they remained. thats the point. ask yourself why the change in attitude towords civilian casulaties 25 days into the conflict? was it a change of heart after almost 1,000 civilan deaths or a more sinister tactical decision?

i must have missed the bit when the sherrif went round threatening to kill anyone still in new orleans in 24 hours time. hardly a good analagy really :rolleyes:

but the IDF ordered them out in the first place. under threat of death if they remained. thats the point. ask yourself why the change in attitude towords civilian casulaties 25 days into the conflict? was it a change of heart after almost 1,000 civilan deaths or a more sinister tactical decision? Take your Secret Jew Lebanon conquering plan some where else please. Maybe they thought, "Maybe it would be easy to fight Hezabollah if there weren't so many civies in the way?" Did you think that maybe for once it was that SIMPLE? Does EVERYTHING need some secret motive? I think the 'Get them the **** out of the way' theory is good enough.

i must have missed the bit when the sherrif went round threatening to kill anyone still in new orleans in 24 hours time. hardly a good analagy really :rolleyes:
Nope as you just said above it really counts now. :p Besides I'm talking about the people who left the city not the ones who were still in the city.

I'm still waiting for that evidence saying that they aren't ever letting them come back...

If the IDF are 'advising' people to leave Southern Lebanon in the face of death and destruction, and then refusing to allow them back later (one of the issues with the UN ceasefire proposal) for strategic reasons, is it not a textbook definition of ethnic cleansing?
I can see why they would want to have all civilians out of the south to vanquish Hezbollah, but if they never intend to let them back (which is unlikely), that is ethnic cleansing.

its not rwanda i will concede, but its nasty and against the rules.
Well, that was genocide more than ethnic cleansing.

Mind you, you're the guy who said that Iran does nothing wrong. Thus I imagine you will condemn any Israeli action for the main reason that most of them are Jews.

There is no forced emigration and they sure are not committing genocide.
They're forcing the civvies to emigrate to a more northerly region in Lebanon.

It's not ethnic cleansing unless you're moving them out and then moving in your own settlers.
No, that's imperialism. Imperialism is often preceded by ethnic cleansing, but you don't need imperialism to have ethnic cleansing.

They're forcing the civvies to emigrate to a more northerly region in Lebanon.

Basically for their own safety.

Noone can tell the future!

No one.

Mind you, you're the guy who said that Iran does nothing wrong. Thus I imagine you will condemn any Israeli action for the main reason that most of them are Jews.


can we have a discussion about this conflict without people being slandered as anti-jew for daring to disagree with with the likes of you. i note you didnt disagree with the substantive question i asked.

i repeatedly stated i was opposed to the iranian president, but questioned, as have many, the translation of a much publicised speech.

its bullying and highly intellectually suspect to resort to calling people who question the IDF as anti-semetic. grow up and argue the issue at hand.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/reuters.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/reuters.jpg

zOmg PUR GENYUS

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/reuters.jpg

Somehow I find this cartoon very funny. I do not know why.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/reuters.jpg

not bad, but irrelevant to this thread....

did you get as angry about fox lying about wmd?

not bad, but irrelevant to this thread....

did you get as angry about fox lying about wmd?

Oh, so Fox lied. I thought they were repeating what the New York Times had in a multi-page spread on mobile WMD labs, written by Judith Miller.

It's not lying if you're just repeating what a souce tells you. Mind you, there's no real way to check whether or not Saddam had WMD, so can't really check the story there.

You can, however, tell that the Reuters photos were crudely Photoshopped.

Oh, so Fox lied. I thought they were repeating what the New York Times had in a multi-page spread on mobile WMD labs, written by Judith Miller.

It's not lying if you're just repeating what a souce tells you. Mind you, there's no real way to check whether or not Saddam had WMD, so can't really check the story there.

You can, however, tell that the Reuters photos were crudely Photoshopped.

and if your source is a photographer from the area.... and at least reuters retracted the photo and apologised. did fox apologise for linking saddam and al-queada?

you are being a total hypocrite on this, one rule for the neo-con press, one rule for the rest.

and if your source is a photographer from the area.... and at least reuters retracted the photo and apologised. did fox apologise for linking saddam and al-queada?

you are being a total hypocrite on this, one rule for the neo-con press, one rule for the rest.

It's not hypocritical.

Show me where Fox deliberately falsified the story, as the photographer in the Reuters case did - more than once.

Reuters didn't have any plans to retract anything, until they got caught by conservative bloggers.

No one.

Perhaps he knows someone named Noone that can see the future?

It's not hypocritical.

Show me where Fox deliberately falsified the story, as the photographer in the Reuters case did - more than once.

Reuters didn't have any plans to retract anything, until they got caught by conservative bloggers.

it is hypocritical you know.

there are books and films and allsorts about fox's lies. you know the script.

reuters got conned. when they found out they sacked the guy, aplogogised and axed the pic. big fuckin deal. its not as if the pic was a total falsification anyway, it was exgaggerated.

and the left are accused of conspiracy theories?!?

it is hypocritical you know.

there are books and films and allsorts about fox's lies. you know the script.
Nothing that wasn't reported by other news organizations.

reuters got conned. when they found out they sacked the guy, aplogogised and axed the pic. big fuckin deal. its not as if the pic was a total falsification anyway, it was exgaggerated.

and the left are accused of conspiracy theories?!?
They only found out after conservative blogs pulled their shorts down in public.

The other pic he faked was a falsification. He added more flares to an Israeli jet, and the picture was labeled as a jet dropping bombs - flares are used to misdirect anti-aircraft missiles - they are NOT bombs.

Looks like AP has some explaining to do now. Yet another set of faked pictures.

Did you see any fake pictures of WMD labs on Fox? No.

it is hypocritical you know.

there are books and films and allsorts about fox's lies. you know the script.

And yet Fox News was willing to throw open the door to all viewers if CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC did the samething. Funny how there were no takers. I find that telling.