Humanitarian Relocation?

[Shusha]

One wonders if perhaps there would be no conflict today if an exchange of populations had occurred in 1948, along with all the other exchanges that happened around that time.

 

[docmauser1]

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

We aren't dealing in bleeding-heart args here.

In general - forced population transfers have not gone well.

"Orderly transfer of German populations. The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner." So says the Potsdam agreement.
Oh! The horror!

 

[Coyote]

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

We aren't dealing in bleeding-heart args here.

In general - forced population transfers have not gone well.

"Orderly transfer of German populations. The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner." So says the Potsdam agreement.
Oh! The horror!

It's not a bleeding heart argument. It's considered a crime.

Tell me how well it worked in the Partition of India, or the expulsion of Jews from Europe and from Arab Countries, or how well it worked under Stalin's Russiafication program. Oh wait, it didn't did it?

 

[Coyote]

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?

Relocation of palistanians should've been done yesterday, of course.

Or relocation of Jews

Afterall, you seem to think forced population transfers are a good thing.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Not all force transfer are bad; and some may even be mandate.

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?

Relocation of palistanians should've been done yesterday, of course.

Or relocation of Jews

Afterall, you seem to think forced population transfers are a good thing.

(REFERENCE)

Customary IHL (ICRC)

Rule 24. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

• NOTE: This is something HAMAS "never" does.
​

The obligation on each party to the conflict, to the extent feasible, to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives is particularly relevant where military objectives can not feasibly be separated from densely populated areas according to Rule 23 (Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.).

This rule is also related to the prohibition of the forcible displacement of a civilian population unless its security demands that it be evacuated (see Rule 129 Parties to an international armed conflict may not deport or forcibly transfer the civilian population of an occupied territory, in whole or in part, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.), because it specifies that evacuation must be undertaken to the extent feasible.

• NOTE: This is something HAMAS "never" does.
​

(COMMENT)

There are a number of conflicts between objectives in International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and the successful conclusion to a territory and political dispute.

• One of the intents of Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) (as well as the UN Charter) is to secure and maintain the peace. So, in the context of the forced movement from areas under conflict, the first level of consideration is the safety of the protected persons and other civilians.

• Included in the scope would be to removed the Fifth Columnist so that they do not contribute to the conflict and do not cause a contentious confrontation between Allied Forces maintaining the Internal Defense and Development (IDAD) combating actual or threatened insurgency by Hostile Host Nation (HN) insurgents dedicated to the continuation of the conflict without regard to International Law.

• The 161 Rules in Customary IHL actually prevent the conclusion of the War by altering the legal environment such that a Decisive Military Victory (DMV) cannot be achieved without violating the scope and intent of the Customary IHL
​

One side (Palestinians) claiming that they have not requirement to abide by Customary IHL because they oppose colonialist places a distinct political-legal advantage.

The other side (Israel), immigrants that exercise their right of self-determination, are prohibited from breaking the will of the aggressor in an attempt to bring the conflict to a swift and durable conclusion.

Thus the conflict goes on indefinitely.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Tell me how well it worked in the Partition of India, or the expulsion of Jews from Europe and from Arab Countries, or how well it worked under Stalin's Russiafication program. Oh wait, it didn't did it?

Well, we won't know for sure because we can't know what would have happened in other circumstances, however, I am of the opinion, personally, that the expulsion of the Jewish people from the Arab countries post WWII probably saved the lives of nearly a million people and all their descendants. I find it impossible to believe that they would have found a better life than the one they got in Israel. (Which is not to discount the personal and familial trauma experienced).

I also wonder if things might have been far worse in India/Pakistan if the two populations had not been separated. It seems to me that a conflict between those two populations forced to live together over the course of 75 years might have been quite horrific.

 

[Coyote]

Tell me how well it worked in the Partition of India, or the expulsion of Jews from Europe and from Arab Countries, or how well it worked under Stalin's Russiafication program. Oh wait, it didn't did it?

Well, we won't know for sure because we can't know what would have happened in other circumstances, however, I am of the opinion, personally, that the expulsion of the Jewish people from the Arab countries post WWII probably saved the lives of nearly a million people and all their descendants. I find it impossible to believe that they would have found a better life than the one they got in Israel. (Which is not to discount the personal and familial trauma experienced).

I also wonder if things might have been far worse in India/Pakistan if the two populations had not been separated. It seems to me that a conflict between those two populations forced to live together over the course of 75 years might have been quite horrific.

India's largest minority is Muslim - and despite periodic violence (from both Hindus and Muslims) - they've managed to keep a stable democratic state. Given that, it seems that while Pakistan might have eventually seceeded (as Bangladesh did) it would be with far less terror and loss of life as the forced population transfers and the panic that insued.

IMO, it's cruel and inhumane.

 

[Shusha]

India's largest minority is Muslim - and despite periodic violence (from both Hindus and Muslims) - they've managed to keep a stable democratic state. Given that, it seems that while Pakistan might have eventually seceeded (as Bangladesh did) it would be with far less terror and loss of life as the forced population transfers and the panic that insued.

I remain unconvinced. The violence before the separation was intense. It seems reasonable to me that without partition and population exchange the violence might have been much worse, over time. Maybe its better to just rip off the bandage?

Your argument seems to be for the panicked, sudden nature of the exchange. A well-prepared for, humanitarian, compensatory population exchange, rather than a panicked one, might relieve the conflict with no loss of life or property.

IMO, it's cruel and inhumane.

But its okay when its required of Jews. You still haven't addressed that.

 

[Boston1]

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

We aren't dealing in bleeding-heart args here.

In general - forced population transfers have not gone well.

"Orderly transfer of German populations. The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner." So says the Potsdam agreement.
Oh! The horror!

It's not a bleeding heart argument. It's considered a crime.

Tell me how well it worked in the Partition of India, or the expulsion of Jews from Europe and from Arab Countries, or how well it worked under Stalin's Russiafication program. Oh wait, it didn't did it?

You are mistaking victims for Arab Muslims of Israel.

 

[docmauser1]

Relocation of palistanians should've been done yesterday, of course.

Or relocation of Jews

Funny how our dear Coyote likes to equate generally civilized jews with general palistanian barbarians, but we digress. Jews built Israel, with all it's industry, agriculture, infrastructure, science, etc., and, generally, wish to be left alone; palistanians, with all that international aid, have built nothing worthy of notice, they know nothing about the creation of beauty, no serious scholarship, pass nothing of greatness down the generations. Their legacy is destruction. What sustains this ragtag assortment of the general ME arabs from various "homelands" is the wet dream of killing jews and plundering of their property and holdings. They should be resettled. Doh.

 

[docmauser1]

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

We aren't dealing in bleeding-heart args here.

In general - forced population transfers have not gone well.

"Orderly transfer of German populations. The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner." So says the Potsdam agreement.
Oh! The horror!

It's not a bleeding heart argument. It's considered a crime.

Depends on the hypocricy du jour, of course.

Tell me how well it worked in the Partition of India, or the expulsion of Jews from Europe and from Arab Countries, or how well it worked under Stalin's Russiafication program. Oh wait, it didn't did it?

Oh, thanks for piling incompatible situations up.

 

[Boston1]

Relocation of palistanians should've been done yesterday, of course.

Or relocation of Jews

Funny how our dear Coyote likes to equate generally civilized jews with general palistanian barbarians, but we digress. Jews built Israel, with all it's industry, agriculture, infrastructure, science, etc., and, generally, wish to be left alone; palistanians, with all that international aid, have built nothing worthy of notice, they know nothing about the creation of beauty, no serious scholarship, pass nothing of greatness down the generations. Their legacy is destruction. What sustains this ragtag assortment of the general ME arabs from various "homelands" is the wet dream of killing jews and plundering of their property and holdings. They should be resettled. Doh.

To be correct, strike the term palestinian from any further comment as it legitimizes the fraud that is the notion the Arab Muslims in Israel are in any way different than the Arab Muslims anywhere else in the area.

Just saying.

Do as you wish as we generally agree on this issue.

Oh and yes I'd relocate but using a strict application of the Geneva Conventions.

 

[RoccoR]

docmauser1, Coyote, et al,

This is a question of Customary Law and the way in which Empire Break-ups were handled in that era.

• The Partition of India (British Empire) which lead to the formation of:

∆ Islamic Republic of Pakistan (August 1947)
∆ People's Republic of Bangladesh [December 1971 (from West Pakistan)]
∆ Republic of India (August 1947))
∆ Sigh (1947 Join the Indian Union)​

• Russification, Russianization, and Sovietization were all evolutionary processes of the same authoritarian regime (Just different Leadership).​

It's not a bleeding heart argument. It's considered a crime.

Depends on the hypocricy du jour, of course.

Tell me how well it worked in the Partition of India, or the expulsion of Jews from Europe and from Arab Countries, or how well it worked under Stalin's Russiafication program. Oh wait, it didn't did it?

Oh, thanks for piling incompatible situations up.

(THE STORY)

In March 1492, the Spanish Edict of Expulsion was issues by the Royal Court. Isabella I (Castile) and King Ferdinand II (Aragon) gave notice that all Jew had four months to leave Spain; some did not make the deadline. With the assistance of Tomas de Torquemada, the First Grand Inquisitor of Spain appointed in 1483, routed the Jewish population so fast that most of the wealth of the Jewish inhabitance were sold ridiculously small amounts or left abandon all together. A strategy that brought great profits to the Royal Court and ranking Catholic clergy. Torquemada, in the course of fourteen years (1485-1498) disposed of at least 2000 Jews were burnt as impenitent sinners"; confiscating their wealth in the process. Similar expulsions swept through Austria, Hungary and Germany, with the process being repeated several times in the following years; right through to 1942 when the final solution was organized.

(COMMENT)

I have to agree (with Coyote) that in most cases, mass transfers, evictions and expulsions were failures in one respect or another. The did have a positive impact on the wealth abandon; but the cultures themselves were poorly treated and suffered greatly and the hand of the powers that be; however, that was (for the most part) the customary way of handling the implementation of expulsion decisions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

Really enjoy your posts Rocco

 

[Coyote]

Relocation of palistanians should've been done yesterday, of course.

Or relocation of Jews

Funny how our dear Coyote likes to equate generally civilized jews with general palistanian barbarians, but we digress. Jews built Israel, with all it's industry, agriculture, infrastructure, science, etc., and, generally, wish to be left alone; palistanians, with all that international aid, have built nothing worthy of notice, they know nothing about the creation of beauty, no serious scholarship, pass nothing of greatness down the generations. Their legacy is destruction. What sustains this ragtag assortment of the general ME arabs from various "homelands" is the wet dream of killing jews and plundering of their property and holdings. They should be resettled. Doh.

In and of itself, "building something" such as the oft repeated claim that "Israeli's made the desert bloom", implying that those indiginous farmers and goatherders did nothing to improve the land - is itself an incredible conceit. As if worth and rights are defined by one's ability (or desire) to improve one's land.


"....palistanians, with all that international aid, have built nothing worthy of notice, they know nothing about the creation of beauty, no serious scholarship, pass nothing of greatness down the generations..."

Mahmoud Darwish (Arabic: محمود درويش‎, 13 March 1942 – 9 August 2008) was a Palestinian poet and author who won numerous awards for his literary output and was regarded as the Palestinian national poet.[1] In his work, Palestine became a metaphor for the loss of Eden, birth and resurrection, and the anguish of dispossession and exile.[2][3] He has been described as incarnating and reflecting "the tradition of the political poet in Islam, the man of action whose action is poetry".

More Palestinian writers, academics and poets:
Ghassan Kanafani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interview: Mourid Barghouti
Edward Said - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nur-eldeen Masalha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestinian Artists:
Kamal Boullata | Barjeel Art Foundation
This artist's work isn't about the Israeli occupation. She paints Palestinian bedrooms — post-sex.
Up and Coming Palestinian Artists
5 Best Palestinian Artists
The Voices of Palestinian Artists: From Palestine With Hope

Music
The Music Of Palestine: Sounds For A New State
Palestinian music director conducts Persian Concert for packed house

Humanitarians, doctors...peacemakers
I Shall Not Hate: A Gaza Doctor's Journey on the Road to Peace and Human Dignity: Izzeldin Abuelaish: 9780802779175: Amazon.com: Books
Palestinian doctor aims to boost West Bank medical services
20-year-old Palestinian girl becomes youngest Doctor in the World - The Siasat Daily
Palestinian doctor aims to boost West Bank medical services

Etc. Etc.....not that it would make the slightest iota of difference to you because there is nothing the Palestinians could do that would be "worthy" of "your notice".

 

[Coyote]

India's largest minority is Muslim - and despite periodic violence (from both Hindus and Muslims) - they've managed to keep a stable democratic state. Given that, it seems that while Pakistan might have eventually seceeded (as Bangladesh did) it would be with far less terror and loss of life as the forced population transfers and the panic that insued.

I remain unconvinced. The violence before the separation was intense. It seems reasonable to me that without partition and population exchange the violence might have been much worse, over time. Maybe its better to just rip off the bandage?

Your argument seems to be for the panicked, sudden nature of the exchange. A well-prepared for, humanitarian, compensatory population exchange, rather than a panicked one, might relieve the conflict with no loss of life or property.

My argument is in the horrendous death toll of innocent men, women, and children of ethnic groups that now, currently coexist side by side in the same state. Huge numbers of death, huge numbers of displaced people, many of whom never regained the wealth or status they had enjoyred previously.

IMO, it's cruel and inhumane.

But its okay when its required of Jews. You still haven't addressed that.

[/QUOTE]

I do not support the mandatory expulsion of Jews - whether it was from Europe, or from Arab countries. However, you're talking about the settlers but that is a far more ambiguous situation - particularly when the settlements are regarded as illegal - and allowed to thrive. One thing you have not addressed is Israel's confiscation of land through the absentee landowner laws - land which was taken by the state and reserved for Jewish settlement only.

Let's set aside the oldest settlements and the ones created on traditionally Jewish habitations - forcing them to evacuate is questionable and my opinion is that they need to be looked at individually. But the newer ones, the ones created out of military outposts in occupied territory and given to Jewish settlers? There are NO Arab Israeli settlements being created are there? I can not find any evidence of new Arab settlements in Israeli controlled territory so they apparently aren't even allowed to develop.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

Is the mass expulsion of people from their homes clearly heinous (and as you have said time and time again inhumane) or is it ambiguous? Is it NEVER to be supported, or can it be supported sometimes?

Again, I'm just asking you to clarify your position. You SEEM to be saying that it is ALWAYS inhumane and a crime and thus should never be supported. At the same time you SEEM to be making an exception for Jews.

Pick a side and run with it. But you can not have it both ways.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Is the mass expulsion of people from their homes clearly heinous (and as you have said time and time again inhumane) or is it ambiguous? Is it NEVER to be supported, or can it be supported sometimes?

Again, I'm just asking you to clarify your position. You SEEM to be saying that it is ALWAYS inhumane and a crime and thus should never be supported. At the same time you SEEM to be making an exception for Jews.

Pick a side and run with it. But you can not have it both ways.

That is a fair question.

Let me ask you this. If you own a thousand acres, and someone build a cluster of homes on it, and declared theirs....what would you do?

 

[Boston1]

I see a massive double standard in removing all Judaic people from Arab mandated areas but insisting Arab Muslims be allowed to stay in Judaic mandated areas.

The concept wreaks of prejudice, racism and bigotry.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Is the mass expulsion of people from their homes clearly heinous (and as you have said time and time again inhumane) or is it ambiguous? Is it NEVER to be supported, or can it be supported sometimes?

Again, I'm just asking you to clarify your position. You SEEM to be saying that it is ALWAYS inhumane and a crime and thus should never be supported. At the same time you SEEM to be making an exception for Jews.

Pick a side and run with it. But you can not have it both ways.

My opinion is that they should not be expelled unless the land they are occupying was stolen from someone else.