Israeli minister confirms goal of large-scale expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza
Israel’s defence minister has said he is committed to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza through large-scale migration of Palestinians as part of Israel’s long-term plans for the territory.
...
The forced transfer of civilian populations is a war crime and a crime against humanity. Israeli officials, including Katz, use the term “voluntary migration” to describe their plans for large numbers of Palestinians to leave Gaza.Israel-based human rights organisations and lawyers have warned that the conditions Israel has imposed on Gaza mean no departure can be considered voluntary and the policy constitutes planning for ethnic cleansing.
Israel’s defence minister says large-scale Palestinian migration from Gaza will go ahead
Human rights groups and lawyers say policy amounts to ethnic cleansingEmma Graham-Harrison (the Guardian)
Esta entrada fue editada (jueves, 28 de mayo de 2026, 16:08)
like this
Carlos Solís
in reply to supersquirrel • •Global News reshared this.
zerofk
in reply to supersquirrel • • •pentastarm
in reply to supersquirrel • • •gandhibobandhi
in reply to supersquirrel • • •So Palestinians who actually want to leave should be forced, against their will, to remain in a warzone because they don't know what's good for them? Do we support Gaza being an "open air prison" now?
Saledovil
in reply to gandhibobandhi • • •gandhibobandhi
in reply to Saledovil • • •As I mentioned in a different comment, it would be interesting to hear the perspectives of Palestinians accepting this offer.
I assumed that anyone who considers it ethnic cleansing would refuse the offer anyway. And I also imagine there are plenty who just don't want to live under a Hamas government any more and the endless conflict/holy war that entails (Personally I'm not expecting Hamas to disarm or relinquish governance, presumably many Gazans have the same view).
I did find this article in al Jazeera and the guy who's leaving Gaza seems pretty happy about it and probably wouldn't describe himself as a victim of ethnic cleansing. Its only a sample size of 1 though so doesn't mean a whole lot on its own.
Gaza Palestinians speak about Israel’s plan to force them out
Maram Humaid (Al Jazeera)MajorasTerribleFate
in reply to gandhibobandhi • • •gandhibobandhi
in reply to MajorasTerribleFate • • •A quick Google gives the definition of ethnic cleansing as "systematic forced removal" so if it's voluntary it just can't fit the definition as far as I can see. Plus- it sounds like the vast majority of Gazans will not be leaving anyway, the "whole people" aren't leaving, just the ones who want to.
When I moved to germany a few years back for work you could argue I was "politely induced" to do that by my new employer and the salary they offered. But nobody would seriously say I was displaced or ethnically cleansed. Even if this German company hired ten thousand british people and they all had to renounce their UK citizenship as part of it.
But I'll keep an open mind that perhaps they are being forced somehow. If the palestinian refugees leaving feel they're being forced into this then I could agree with the ethnic cleansing accusation.
Aria
in reply to gandhibobandhi • • •I have a bullet and I have ten monies. I want to trade one of them for your house. Are you selling it to me or do I have to shoot you?
After you have taken the offer where you get to live, will you describe the way I acquired your house as a crime later? You signed the bill of sale.
PugJesus
in reply to supersquirrel • • •gandhibobandhi
in reply to PugJesus • • •PugJesus
in reply to gandhibobandhi • • •This may shock you, but refugees are expected to return to their homes eventually.
Sorry that you feel that an occupying power murdering a tenth of a region's population and then openly 'encouraging' others of a given ethnicity in the region to emigrate is normal, ordinary, everyday, non-genocidal behavior. I hope you get better.
Tiresia
in reply to PugJesus • • •Refugees absolutely do not have to go "home" if they don't want to. They should always have the right to, but it's equally okay if they settle and build a new home that's hopefully far away from people wanting to murder them for their ethnicity. They are people, not weapons with which to bring justice to those that attacked them.
The notion pushed by neoliberals that migration is temporary should be recognized as an excuse to ensure continued alienation between two different groups of workers and to make a large group of workers permanently at the mercy of corporations that hire them and states that have a mandate to fuck them over at a moment's notice.
PugJesus
in reply to Tiresia • • •Refugees and immigrants are related, but generally considered separate, phenomena. Refugees, for this reason, are often restricted from being hired by corporations in civilized countries to avoid exactly that kind of exploitation.
Some refugees become immigrants. The reverse is not so.
Tiresia
in reply to PugJesus • • •How many of the "civilized countries" you're thinking of are materially contributing to the genocide of Palestinians? How many people have they killed or caused to die by violently enforcing standards of what they consider to be a proper refugee or a proper migrant, and manipulating those standards based on the needs of the rich?
Can you please think for yourself rather than referring to what is "generally considered" or what "civilized countries" do? Or, alternatively, can you stop hiding behind popular opinion and say the quiet part out loud?
PugJesus
in reply to Tiresia • • •... I'm not sure you understand asylum law.
... this is literally a question of semantics/definitions. Unless you've decided to become some new kind of iconoclastic guerilla prescriptivist, both of those matters are pretty innately connected to the issue being discussed.
what
Tiresia
in reply to PugJesus • • •The only way to make the question whether refugees are expected to "go home" a semantic issue is if your stance is if you believe that when someone runs away from genocide it is their free choice between becoming a refugee or becoming a migrant.
This is a coherent position, but it is not one held by "civilized countries", their legal systems, or any English dictionary I expect you'll be able to find that wasn't written by AI.
Otherwise, you are expecting things from someone based on something that happened to them involuntarily, or based on the legal system of where-ever they were able to flee to for shelter, and that is a proactive ethical stance.
Perhaps I don't. How has asylum law avoided being changed by neoliberalism and neoconservatism?
PugJesus
in reply to Tiresia • • •... that... that is literally the case.
Those who remain refugees are expressing a desire to return to their countries of origin. They are seeking refuge rather than permanent residency, and that's what the entire fucking structure of asylum law is based around.
Those who are refugees but decide they would rather not return to their country of origin even once the danger has passed apply through their host country's laws to become immigrants to that country.
... Mostrar más... that's... that's all of life, man.
... that... that is literally the case.
Those who remain refugees are expressing a desire to return to their countries of origin. They are seeking refuge rather than permanent residency, and that's what the entire fucking structure of asylum law is based around.
Those who are refugees but decide they would rather not return to their country of origin even once the danger has passed apply through their host country's laws to become immigrants to that country.
... that's... that's all of life, man.
... generally the expectation of legal systems is that the person in question will adhere to the laws, yes.
Asylum law wouldn't exist at all if it was only a question of the interests of the rich. Refugees provide no benefit to the ultrawealthy or corporations, again, in civilized countries, precisely because they are not part of the labor pool, yet remain an expense which discourages the central government from cutting taxes further. On top of that, that refugees are a lawful and recognized position strips corporations of their ability to exploit them the way they would other classes of migrant - meaning that it is in the interests of the rich to see asylum law abolished entirely, not some bizarre notion that refugees being a protected class is somehow in the interests of the ultra-wealthy.