Ethnic Cleansing is not genocide, and the Trump Plan is not even Ethnic Cleansing. The current legal status of the Gaza Strip allows for the USA to get involved like this. President Trump is attempting to do a favor for all concerned, and to do so within the parameters of International Law.
There are some leftists in the media who equate Ethnic Cleansing with genocide by other means. Not just intentional ethnocide, but any mass moving of an ethnicity they wrongly label as ethnic cleansing. But these two concepts are not the same. It's the difference between being caught in a fire, and being allowed to escape it. Live to reestablish society on another day. Ethically speaking, genocide is much worse. Ethnic cleansing is bad. Whereas relocating people to preserve the peace, and save lives can be a good thing.
On the PBS Newshour website, in October 2017, Layla Quran, simplified an explanation of the legal standing of ethnic cleansing:
"To qualify as genocide, the actions must be done with intent to eliminate an entire group of people. Without provable intent, a group or individual can still be guilty of “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing” but not genocide.
"...Ethnic cleansing has not been defined and is not recognized as a crime under international law, according to the U.N. And in reality, the lines between ethnic cleansing and genocide are often blurred."
We illustrated last month in this blog that displacing criminals is not ethnic cleansing, further terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions which their behavior rejects. Therefore to determine legality of the Trump plan, we need only consider what is President Trump's intention to the non terrorists among the Arabs of Gaza?
What President Trump's plan calls for and explicitly is intended to do is to save and protect the Palestinian Arab population of the Gaza Strip from all the dangers and health hazards inherent in residing in ruins filled with shrapnel and the like. There is no intention of ethnocide whatsoever. Therefore it cannot be truthfully categorized as any kind of ethnocide.
The crime would be to attempt to stop the salvation of the Arabs who huddle in the ruins of Gaza. Only someone who cynically used the plight of the Palestinian Arabs as a tool to strike at Israel with, would have any grounds to object to what is best for the Palestinian Arabs. They had many chances for a more ideal peace plan, but now this is the best option that is viable under the circumstances. If indeed it results in a new Riviera of the Middle East, as Donald J. Trump dreams of, it can even become an ideal solution.
The left wing rewriting of these vital legal terms is astoundingly bad for International peacemaking; to make the legal seem illegal. German scholar, Prof. Meghan Garrity, wrote the following in her essay, 'Ethnic Cleansing’: An Analysis of Conceptual and Empirical Ambiguity':
“I recommend social scientists abandon the term (ethnic cleansing) because of five critical areas of conceptual confusion..."
After describing how this harms the efficacy of social scientists to help improve the situation, she then suggests four alternative and more accurate descriptors of these kinds of issues,
"Massacre (with the intent to annihilate)
Mass expulsion (with the intent to remove)
Coercive assimilation (with the intent to eliminate a unique cultural identity)
Control (with the intent to subjugate)"
Therefore from the Garrity perspective, entering a discussion of the Trump Plan for Gaza begins with acknowledging it is an evaluation of the intent of a mass expulsion. Just being able to use the correct terminology is half the battle to find common ground in the debate. But a classic conception of mass expulsion is one that has no hope of return, such as the Spanish Expulsion of the Jews in 1492. But here, Trump plans to invite Palestinian Arabs to return when it is safe.
Just to describe the mechanics of the legal status of the Gaza Strip today in more layman terms. The disputed territories are Israeli property that it has been trying to give away to the Palestinian Authority, but not to Hamas. Before the peace deal could be concluded by the transfer in stages program of the Oslo Accords, once called "Jericho First," Hamas' violent takeover of Gaza occurred. Without a peace deal that solidified the land transfer, Israel is empowered to select a new governor to keep the peace in the territory today. For more on this, study the International Laws on Session and Succession.
The reality of the situation is this: Let's ask the question if there is an alternative plan that protects Arab lives and provides them hope for a better tomorrow of good healthcare, prosperity, and peace, more so than the Trump plan? As of today, there is none.
May all who care for peace for Israel, and for peace, health, and wellbeing of the Palestinian Arabs acknowledge this. May it soon be so, by the grace of God.
