Humanitarian Relocation?

[Shusha]

This article was posted elsewhere but I think it deserves its own thread.

It opens:

Consideration should be given even to the heroic remedy of transfer of populations […] the hardship of moving is great, but it is less than the constant suffering of minorities and the constant recurrence of war – US president Herbert Hoover, 1943.

The relentless murder of Israeli Jews and the irreparable collapse of the peace process means that Israel and the international community must now consider the “heroic remedy” of population transfer. After decades of terrorism, it is clear that the majority of Arabs in Judea-Samaria and east Jerusalem are incapable of living alongside their Jewish neighbours. The failure of the Oslo Accords, the rampant criminality inside the Palestinian Authority, as well as decades of Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement, clearly demonstrate that Jews cannot afford the liberal luxury of uninhibited co-existence with an Arab population that clings to the fascistic and immoral ideology of Palestinianism.



Is there such a thing as "humanitarian relocation"? Should we consider this as a viable option to end the conflict? Do you think it would work? If you disagree with the details of the solution provided in the article, do you have other suggestions?

 

[Boston1]

My take would be to follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter. Its already in place, Its inarguable as the law governing war, and it would result in the same thing given that the children of combatants are not refugees.

 

[Coyote]

No, it's not humanitarian if it's against the will of the population. It's an absolutely inhumane thing to do.

In general - forced population transfers have not gone well.

India's partition.

Russia's forced transfer of ethnic Russians into minority provences and minorities out (for example Chechyans forceably transferred to Siberia).

 

[Boston1]

I think its a practical solution to the incessant racism and bigotry by the Arab Muslims

Quote

The relentless murder of Israeli Jews and the irreparable collapse of the peace process means that Israel and the international community must now consider the “heroic remedy” of population transfer. After decades of terrorism, it is clear that the majority of Arabs in Judea-Samaria and east Jerusalem are incapable of living alongside their Jewish neighbours. The failure of the Oslo Accords, the rampant criminality inside the Palestinian Authority, as well as decades of Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement, clearly demonstrate that Jews cannot afford the liberal luxury of uninhibited co-existence with an Arab population that clings to the fascistic and immoral ideology of Palestinianism.

End Quote

Although I'd give them one last chance through the strict enactment of Geneva Convention policies

 

[Coyote]

Has the mass transfer of civilian populations ever worked well?

Soviet Union: Stalin forceably transferred large numbers of ethnic minorities from some of it's territories (usually to Siberia since it's sparsly populated) and transferred in ethnic Russians to dilute ethnic populations. Many of those transferred to Siberia died, or survived in poverty. Now, with those territories back in the hands of the indiginous ethnic groups, the ethnic-Russians are the minority and are suffering persecution in return. I see no humanity in this for anyone.

Partitian of India - the bloodiest most horrific decision ever made that led to as many as 2,000,000 Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims slaughtered. And, because having a common religion does not necessarily mean having a common culture, it lead to further war and the seccession of Bangladesh from Pakistan.

Population Transfer in Perspective

As Benvenisti points out, the first population-exchanges involved Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. The Treaty of Nueilly of November 27, 1919 provided for 46,000 Greeks from Bulgaria and 96,000 Bulgarians from Greece to switch countries. After the defeat of the Greek army in the Greek-Turkish War following World War I, and the Turk assault against Greek communities in Turkey, Greek refugees began fleeing their homes in Turkey. Greece and Turkey exchanged of populations with about 2,000,000 Greeks who were Turkish citizens and about 500,000 Turks, who were Greek citizens.

The exchange of populations had worked so effectively, Benvenisti observed, that in post-World-War II, the Allies decided to transfer 15 million Germans living in Eastern Europe, primarily in the Eastern part of Germany, after it had been granted to Poland. According to the Potsdam Declaration, Germans living in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were to be transferred to Germany "in an orderly and humane manner.” Although the West attempted to ease the transition, there was much distress and suffering, as well as large numbers of deaths. After the borders in Europe were redrawn, smaller transfers were made in parts of Central and Eastern Europe.

Population transfer was also used in 1947 to settle the inter-religious enmity between Hindus and Muslims in British India. Once it became clear that the communities could not live together, the sub-continent was partitioned into two states – India and Pakistan – requiring the resettlement of millions of people.

Mass transferring of populations by states is no longer acceptable. When Turkey invaded Cyprus in July 1974, Turkey was condemned for the large numbers of Greek and Turkish Cypriots who were displaced after being forced to flee from their homes. After atrocities were committed in the former Yugoslavia, people began using the term “ethnic cleansing” to describe the uprooting and displacement of populations, which was identified as a war crime. A process that was sanctioned, if not legal in 1948, is now regarded as criminal. ​

 

[Boston1]

Yes it has

The Turkey Greece incident is a good example.

Millions of people changed places and it worked like a charm.

Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

No, it's not humanitarian if it's against the will of the population. It's an absolutely inhumane thing to do.

In general - forced population transfers have not gone well.

India's partition.

Russia's forced transfer of ethnic Russians into minority provences and minorities out (for example Chechyans forceably transferred to Siberia).

Or the arab muslims forced eviction of upwards of 1 million Jews out of their homes and lands in violation of international laws. Don't forget that as it is pertinent to the boards remit. Far too many times are the Jews demonised when they recover their lands in the OPT and build settlements on those lands legally. The LoN saw the problems way back in the early 20C and made provisions to forcibly relocate those who refused to live in peace and take citizenship or who moved willingly with a grant to cover all costs. Still embodied in International law today for the arab muslims in Jewish Palestine, and the UN being the successor can implement this law at any time.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Posting #5 is one of those observations that you really find anything positive to say anthing about.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Yes it has

The Turkey Greece incident is a good example.

Millions of people changed places and it worked like a charm.

Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...it "worked like a charm"....

Population exchange between Greece and Turkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political and economic effects of the exchange
More than one million refugees who left Turkey for Greece after the war in 1922, through different mechanisms contributed to the unification of elites under authoritarian regimes in Turkey and Greece. In Turkey, the departure of the independent and strong economic elites, e.g. the Greek Orthodox populations, left the dominant state elites unchallenged. In fact, Caglar Keyder noted that "what this drastic measure [Greek-Turkish population exchange] indicates is that during the war years Turkey lost... [around 90 percent of the pre-war] commercial class, such that when the Republic was formed, the bureaucracy found itself unchallenged".The emerging business groups that supported the Free Republican Party in 1930 could not prolong the rule of a single-party without an opposition. Transition to multiparty politics depended on the creation of stronger economic groups in the mid-1940s, which was stifled due to the exodus of the Greek middle and upper economic classes. Hence, if the groups of Orthodox Christians had stayed in Turkey after the formation of the nation-state, then there would have been a faction of society ready to challenge the emergence of single-party rule in Turkey. In Greece, contrary to Turkey, the arrival of the refugees broke the dominance of the monarchy and old politicians relative to the Republicans. In the elections of the 1920s most of the newcomers supported Eleftherios Venizelos. However, increasing grievances of the refugees caused some of the immigrants to shift their allegiance to the Communist Party and contributed to its increasing strength. Prime Minister Metaxas, with the support of the King, responded to the communists by establishing an authoritarian regime in 1936. In these ways, the population exchange indirectly facilitated changes in the political regimes of Greece and Turkey during the interwar period.[14]

Many immigrants died of epidemic illnesses during the voyage and brutal waiting for boats for transportation. The death rate during the immigration was four times higher than the birth rate. In the first years after arrival, the immigrants from Greece were inefficient in economic production, having only brought with them agricultural skills in tobacco production. This created considerable economic loss in Anatolia for the new Turkish republic. On the other hand, the Greek populations that left were skilled workers who engaged in transnational trade and business, as per previous capitulations policies of the Ottoman Empire.[15]

 

[Shusha]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

 

[Coyote]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

 

[Shusha]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

How do you know? If you don't know what would have happened had it gone the other way? How do you define success? Do you think that if, for example, India and Pakistan had not exchanged populations that it would have "worked"? How so?

 

[Boston1]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

Well its progress. I don't see the problem in separating these two ( Israel and the Arab Muslims ) But I'd first give the established norms a chance, which brings us back to the strict application of the Geneva Conventions. With Jordan acting as the country of origin

 

[Coyote]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

Well its progress. I don't see the problem in separating these two ( Israel and the Arab Muslims ) But I'd first give the established norms a chance, which brings us back to the strict application of the Geneva Conventions. With Jordan acting as the country of origin

I fail to see how 2 million dead marks "progress".

 

[Coyote]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

How do you know? If you don't know what would have happened had it gone the other way? How do you define success? Do you think that if, for example, India and Pakistan had not exchanged populations that it would have "worked"? How so?

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

What if it were you and your family being moved in a population transfer such as the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands? Many of those expelled had great difficulty adjusting to Israel, fitting in with a Jewish population that was largely different. Many were suffered poverty that they had not been in their native country.

An unwilling expulsion is a crime for good reason - it's inhumane.

 

[Shusha]

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

The question I was posing is how do you know it wouldn't have been worse if there had been no population exchange?

 

[Coyote]

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

The question I was posing is how do you know it wouldn't have been worse if there had been no population exchange?

You don't.

You only can know what DID happen - 2 million innocent civilians did.

There is a reason it's considered a crime.

 

[Billo_Really]

This article was posted elsewhere but I think it deserves its own thread.

It opens:

Consideration should be given even to the heroic remedy of transfer of populations […] the hardship of moving is great, but it is less than the constant suffering of minorities and the constant recurrence of war – US president Herbert Hoover, 1943.

The relentless murder of Israeli Jews and the irreparable collapse of the peace process means that Israel and the international community must now consider the “heroic remedy” of population transfer. After decades of terrorism, it is clear that the majority of Arabs in Judea-Samaria and east Jerusalem are incapable of living alongside their Jewish neighbours. The failure of the Oslo Accords, the rampant criminality inside the Palestinian Authority, as well as decades of Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement, clearly demonstrate that Jews cannot afford the liberal luxury of uninhibited co-existence with an Arab population that clings to the fascistic and immoral ideology of Palestinianism.



Is there such a thing as "humanitarian relocation"? Should we consider this as a viable option to end the conflict? Do you think it would work? If you disagree with the details of the solution provided in the article, do you have other suggestions?

Israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions and you have the gall to claim it's the Pals who can't live with their neighbors?

Let me spell it out for you, twisted sister, it doesn't matter what fancy little name you want to call it, transferring a population under occupation is ILLEGAL!

 

[Boston1]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

Well its progress. I don't see the problem in separating these two ( Israel and the Arab Muslims ) But I'd first give the established norms a chance, which brings us back to the strict application of the Geneva Conventions. With Jordan acting as the country of origin

I fail to see how 2 million dead marks "progress".

well you went from never works to seldom works so yeah. Progress.

What we know isn't working is leaving Arab Muslims loose to Israel. They just don't have the capacity to live in peace. So I can understand why people are finally realizing that segregation might just be the only option.

Certainly Israel isn't willing to weaken its position until the Arab Muslims prove over time they want peace. I think at this point we can all admit thats never going to happen.

My suggestion is that we first throw the UN out and then having taken over food distribution use a carrot and stick method offering the Arab Muslims all the food they want at designation stations designed to identify combatants from actual refugees.

Its quick and easy. Repatriate the combatants to their countries of Origin. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, wherever. No nation is required to maintain a hostile enemy force within its own borders.

 

[Challenger]

This article was posted elsewhere but I think it deserves its own thread.

It opens:

Consideration should be given even to the heroic remedy of transfer of populations […] the hardship of moving is great, but it is less than the constant suffering of minorities and the constant recurrence of war – US president Herbert Hoover, 1943.

The relentless murder of Israeli Jews and the irreparable collapse of the peace process means that Israel and the international community must now consider the “heroic remedy” of population transfer. After decades of terrorism, it is clear that the majority of Arabs in Judea-Samaria and east Jerusalem are incapable of living alongside their Jewish neighbours. The failure of the Oslo Accords, the rampant criminality inside the Palestinian Authority, as well as decades of Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement, clearly demonstrate that Jews cannot afford the liberal luxury of uninhibited co-existence with an Arab population that clings to the fascistic and immoral ideology of Palestinianism.



Is there such a thing as "humanitarian relocation"? Should we consider this as a viable option to end the conflict? Do you think it would work? If you disagree with the details of the solution provided in the article, do you have other suggestions?

Good idea. Transfer the Zionist colonists out of Palestine and let the natives return.