Child refugees, Gaza
Joe Biden, Secretary of State Blinken and Vice President Kamala Harris have all repeated the same demands of Israel regarding the ongoing war: no Israeli appropriation of Gaza territory for a buffer zone and no “forced relocation” of Gazans:
“The vice president reiterated that under no circumstances will the United States permit the forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank,” the statement from the White House said.
The key word in that sentence is “forced.” Without reading that carefully, you might think the US opposes ethnic cleansing in Gaza. But it doesn’t. It only opposes forced ethnic cleansing, which it euphemizes as “relocation.” The upshot is that the US does not oppose voluntary relocation. In other words, we have no problem with Gazans who leave of their own volition.
But what does “voluntary” mean? For Israel, it means anyone who leaves Gaza no matter what the reason. If you have a family of 20 and your home has been bombed and have no food to feed your babies and decide you must leave…is that voluntary? No, of course not. But Israel would describe it as such. It’s akin to a woman accusing a man of rape, while in his defense he describes it as “consensual.” When someone does something against their will it is not voluntary. For someone who feels forced to do something, it doesn’t mean s/he wants to do it.
In case anyone is dubious about Biden administration intentions on this count, read the language in the $106-billion supplemental aid bill providing military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Israel. DAWN first noticed how problematic it was:
These resources would support displaced and conflict affected civilians, including Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the West Bank, and to [sic] address potential needs of Gazans fleeing to neighboring countries…This would also include potential critical humanitarian infrastructure costs needed for the refugee population to provide access to basic, life-sustaining support. This crisis could well result in displacement across [the] border and higher regional humanitarian needs, and funding may be used to meet evolving programming requirements outside of Gaza.
Why would Gazans “flee to neighboring countries?” Who would make them leave? Use of the term “flee” is in keeping with the notion that these refugees would be doing so voluntarily, to use Harris’ term.
This portion of the overall aid bill allocates $14-billion in weapons transfers to Israel to pursue its genocide there. But a portion of that could facilitate the “voluntary transfer” of much of Gaza’s population. In that regard, an official Israeli intelligence ministry plan estimates that it would cost $5-8-billion to ship 2.5-million Gazans to Egypt. Though the US didn’t necessarily broach this particular plan, certainly it would take such a substantial sum (or larger) to ‘properly’ expel Gaza’s population.
The NY Times reported Israel had presented six countries, the US, UK, UAE, Egypt, Jordan and presumably Saudi Arabia (though its name was not mentioned), with a plan to “transfer” i.e. expel “hundreds of thousands” of Gazans.
Israel has quietly tried to build international support…for the transfer of several hundred thousand civilians from Gaza to Egypt for the duration of its war in the territory, according to six senior foreign diplomats.
Israeli leaders and diplomats have privately proposed the idea to several foreign governments, framing it as a humanitarian initiative that would allow civilians to temporarily escape the perils of Gaza for refugee camps in the Sinai Desert, just across the border in neighboring Egypt.
In other words, Israel proposed doing to today’s Gaza refugees precisely what it did to 1-million Palestinians during the Nakba: expelling them to desert refugee camps in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The notion that this expulsion would last only “for the duration of its war in the territory” is preposterous. Once they leave they ain’t coming back. Gazans know this. Egypt and Jordan know this. That’s why they refused to be suckered into going along with this charade.
Note that the language in the US aid proposal is similar to the Israeli plan. Both are framed as a humanitarian gesture for refugees “escaping the perils of Gaza.” To where? The Sinai Desert, which of course is waiting for them with welcome arms. Not to mention Egyptians themselves, being the hospitable people they are, would roll out the welcome mat for a million or so starving refugees.
There can be hardly any doubt that Israel and the Biden administration concocted this plan together. It is simply astonishing that the US, which makes a show of respecting human rights globally, would betray them so egregiously.
Prof. Rashid Khalidi makes the case of US collusion even stronger. He says in a Foreign Policy interview:
At the outset of this war, the president sent Secretary Blinken to convey to the Egyptians and the Jordanians a request that they allow Palestinians to be expelled into their territory. That is disgraceful. That is direct American participation in the ethnic cleansing of part of historic Palestine. They immediately pulled back on that when the Egyptians and the Jordanians explained why they would under no circumstances allow that to happen.
In this, Biden carried water for Israel as he has done for 50 years. Except this time he conspired with Israel to commit a grave violation of international law. But no worries, we have not ratified the Rome Statute, so Biden, Blinken and Bibi would not sit in the dock in the Hague. Theoretically, Bibi could be tried. But not with the current ICC prosecutor general.
I queried the State Department, asking if they would confirm that Blinken conveyed such a plan to Egypt and Jordan. Instead of answering my question, it sent boilerplate which echoes Harris’ language above:
- The United States will also continue to support efforts for safe passage for civilians in Gaza seeking safety.
- The United States does not support any forced relocation of Palestinians outside of Gaza.
- …The United States does not and will not support any forced displacement of Palestinians from their homes in Gaza.
Clearly, once it was rebuffed by Egypt and Jordan, it modified its position, but only slightly. Though it appears to have abandoned the “transfer” proposal it pitched to Egypt and Jordan, it hasn’t at all. It retains language which permits Israel to expel Gazans as long as they leave voluntarily, with Israel left to define the term. This is ethnic cleansing by another name. We’ve prettied it up by calling it “refugee assistance” and providing for the “needs of Gazans…displaced across borders.” We are so kind and generous. We take care of babies and orphans. Ain’t we grand?! All while betraying Gazans and treating them like cattle shipped to the slaughter house, instead of human beings.
Please stop using the legally meaningless phrase “ethnic cleansing.” It is a euphemism for genocide.
Genocide does not required “forced expulsion”. It is an act of genocide to create conditions that encourage a “voluntary evacuation.”
Genocide Convention Art. 2, Clause (c).
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
The use of the phrase “to commit genocide” instead of the phrase “to ethnically cleanse” is important from the standpoint of law.
The commission of a US federal capital crime cannot be part of the official duties of the president. The president must be arrested to be tried for the US federal capital crime of genocide.
This legal definition is then applicable equally both to Hamas and Israel.
Hamas murdered and tortured and raped and burnt down homes of Israeli citizens thus causing the physical destruction of various towns and causing of the remaining population to evacuate.
Genocide though is a loaded word in popular usage, and the legal definition is so wide ranging in its possible applications so as to dilute it of its original meaning of completely wiping out an ethnic group, which I don’t believe either side of the conflict is intending to do.
I apologize for the extra comment, but I have to object to a standard Zionist propaganda technique. While Hamas may have committed crimes, a crime by one party does not offset a crime by another party, and no crime by Hamas can legalize the genocide or murder that the Zionist movement has perpetrated against Palestinians since Dec 1947 and that has never ceased.
Here is the definition of genocide in international law.
Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of
peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake
to prevent and to punish.
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d ) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Jurists have interpreted intent in Article 2 prologue to be dolus specialis (specific malevolent strategy). While it is easy to prove beyond a shadow of doubt in a court of law that the Zionist leadership had a specific malevolent strategy of genocide, but it is impossible to prove dolus specialis of genocide on the part of Hamas. In addition, like any national resistance movement Hamas has an active defense for its acts.
It is easy to identify dolus specialis (specific malevolent strategy) of genocide among Zionist colonial settlers. It is impossible to demonstrate comparable dolus specialis for Hamas.
@ Shmuel: I don’t agree that Hamas has committed war crimes. Armed resistance against foreign occupation is legitimate according to a UN GA resolution. Armed resistance is not genocide. They did not “destroy” towns in Israel. They attacked them. That is not the same.
Now, if you say that Hamas is guilty of war crimes I would agree. I believe Hamas leaders should face justice in the Hague. But only if Israeli leaders and generals join them there.
THe legal definition of genocide is only “wide-ranging” or “diluted of its original meaning” if you cynically attempt to undermine it so it doesn’t apply to anyone, especially Israel. The actual definition of genocide is quite clear. And Israel btw is attempting to ‘wipe out’ Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza. “Wiping out” not only means mass murder. But it also means erasing an indigenous population from its land, as Israel is doing.
To be legally correct, any party to an armed conflict can commit genocide, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, but our legal system understands a crime to consist of a criminal act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea). In an active defense, the defendant admits the act but proves that he does not have the intent. If I kill someone to stop him from murdering me or from murdering someone else, my intent is not murder but to defend myself or the other person. When a native resistance movement attacks, it does not have criminal intent against the target but to defend its people from a crime.
Actually, an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, does not negate any elements of the crime (including intent) but serves as an exception to criminal liability notwithstanding that the elements of the crime have been satisfied.
I’m not familiar with a “self-defense” exception to genocide. I’m also not familiar with any rule under international law that permits a native resistance movement to torture and murder civilians.
A civilian is not always a protected non-combatant. If a civilian is taking part in genocide, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, he is not a protected non-combatant, and the native resistance can certainly kill the civilian without necessarily incurring criminal culpability or liability.
Mens rea is not determined by an objective standard in a court even if the prima facie case asserts mens rea exists. In a criminal case it must be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Someone, who does not meet a legal standard of competence at the time of actus reus has a good chance of overcoming the prima facie case.
@ Rex: Hamas is not liable for defending its homeland. A case may be made that it is liable for its killing of civilians. But that is all.
Hamas had not committed genocide. There is no intent to commit genocide. A single act of invasion of Israeli soil and accompanying killings is not a pattern leading to a legitimate claim of genocide. It may be a war crime, but not genocide. Not to mention that such an invasion is a legitimate act of armed resistance.
I’m quite familiar with Israel’s actions in Gaza amounting to genocide.
There is a UN General Assembly resolution that affirms a right to armed resistance against foreign occupation. It does not specify categories that may be targeted. Nevertheless, nearly half of those killed on 10/7 were soldiers, police, Shin Bet and other official, and therefore legitimate targets.
You may publish a single comment in any thread. This one was yours for this thread.
It does seem that Hamas had to have criminal intent that is if it was planned and under unified command. I have a hard time with Israel’s intent which is under unified command regardless of what they claim. This begs some judgement as to, regardless of “intent”, whether enough care (or care at all) was/is taken in the use of weapons used, disproportion( as policy), indiscrimination. How much of this war is about retribution, retaliation, rage, visited on all Gazans because of the threat of the few. I have a hard time with the tunnels as an excuse for having to destroy civilization above.
Israel has not been very successful in its declaration/ or arguments that Gaza after 2005 was no longer under occupation, especially under the blockade. It’s been no sale that Gaza is an independent state separate from the West Bank. Palestinians want to have a state that connects the West Bank and Gaza as their state. The polity are Palestinians, the people. But the land has been treated separately by Israelis. more and more so over the years. Israel’s solution seemed headed towards cutting Gaza off and letting it float in its bubble into space and then concentrating on settling the West Bank. The ostrich approach.. for years.
In legal terms calling a horrible massacre of human beings a genocide is not as straightforward … see Nuremberg trials and Jewish scholar — Starvation Genocide and the Triumph of Raphael Lemkin.
The Srebrenica massacre (Ratko Mladić) was judged a genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), yet the World High Court ICJ in The Hague in Case Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, found Serbia Responsible for Breaches of Genocide Convention, but Not Liable for Committing Genocide.
Re: “Hamas murdered and tortured and raped and burnt down homes of Israeli citizens thus causing the physical destruction of various towns and causing of the remaining population to evacuate.”
It would have been money well spent for all concerned if Israel had stopped its illegal blockade and paid the Palestinians reparations or just recognized their right to return to those depopulated areas where Israel had established that skirmish line of Nahal military settlements in the first place then.
Moshe Dayan warned the residents there not to blame the Arabs when they inevitably get fed up watching people living on their stolen land. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/moshe-dayan-s-eulogy-for-roi-rutenberg-april-19-1956
It’s reasonable to wonder. After all the destruction in Gaza, the surviving population are in need of a way to survive: shelter, medical care, food, and livelihood. How can they survive in the broken environment we are seeing in the photos?
I read an idea floating around to flood the tunnels! Somehow the Mediterannean will wash over it all? So the population has to go somewhere just to survive regardless of any formal plan. This Israeli plan that Biden sanctioned was from the beginning ethnic cleansing, genocide, whatever you want to call it.
I read Bret Stephens NYT column (12/6) focussing on Hamas brutal rape of women ( it was difficult to read). He publishes details from the UN conference he attended, the testimony and then the column’s comments. Pramila Jayapal gets ripped apart and put on the defensive for her CNN interview where she is trying to turn the attention back to Gazans. (She now responds on twitter/X) But in the NYT comments, overwhelmingly, many are thanking Stephens for reminding us or making us aware of how awful Hamas terror was. It was..unimaginable. But this indirectly/directly works to justify what Israel is doing. This is keeping and spreading the Hamas terror of Oct 7th alive by spreading the gruesome details and thus contributing to the cycle. This is very much part of the war being waged.
Dutch News television broadcast this evening too had an episode on the ongoing investigation sexual violence and rape of women of all ages and mutilation body parts on 7th October. Not coincidental but well coordinated … Dutch government is similar to Germany fully backing Israel’s version of events. Not focused on horror bombing and massacre of 16,000+ civilians in Gaza, no coverage of settler terror on West Bank.
I am reading from many sources. +972 Magazine is good.
The gruesome details of the Hamas attack, truly gruesome, are causing renewed reverberating reactions and serves to traumatize, re-traumatize, terrorize again, enrage, justify retaliation now and in the future.. We see it now in “anti-Semitic” attacks pronounced only since 10/7. The Israeli rage-retaliation war that they are deeply into that we here support has to be adding more terror to the original Hamas terror making the entire situation worse. The need for Israel as they destroy is to keep people sympathetic to Israel as the victim. The so-called “pro-Israel” side of this pushes these gruesome details to work people up, to justify what we are seeing in Gaza. Traumatized people.
I hope the Security Council is able to declare a ceasefire. “António Guterres, the secretary general of the United Nations, on Wednesday called on the Security Council to declare an immediate and binding cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war, invoking a rare and powerful tool in the U.N. Charter known as Article 99.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/06/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/the-head-of-the-un-asks-the-security-council-to-declare-a-cease-fire-in-gaza-under-a-rarely-invoked-rule?
Noam Chomsky, several years ago, made a definitive statement, “If they have to fiddle with the language, they are lying.”
How do we stop this ethnic cleansing, forever? Can we at least stop the US from being complicit?
Dutch self-censorship
Today’s headline on NOS national broadcast site ..
US State’s latest euphemism …
“Blinken says gap remains between Israel’s intent to protect civilians and results”
Circumventing the naked truth for the world to see. Genocide.
The state department used an emergency declaration to sell $106.5m worth of ammo for Israel’s Merkava tanks (14,000 rounds), without congressional review. Killing civilians must go forward.
Ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was the zionist entity’s plan from the day it was founded, I know that as an Israeli.
School of Urban Warfare: Battle of Jenin 2002
[…]
Those in charge of so-called Operation Defensive Shield decided to enforce a siege so tight that no one, despite global protests, could get past Israel’s ring of steel; it was a total lockdown. It lasted for weeks while the Israeli government did its best to keep journalists and human rights observers away from the Palestinian city in the occupied West Bank.
More …
Gaza: the Israel-United States connection | Open Democracy – 7 Jan. 2009 |
Netanyahu Fulfilling His Words Post 9/11