Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

Disengagement 710 - Ethnic cleansing!

374 replies

Squeezingwildoranges · 06/09/2026 22:30

If the current Israeli government manage to expel all Palestinians from the land, should all Israelis be held culpable for not trying to stop it.

OP posts:
SharonEllis · 08/09/2026 08:52

The Israeli public will express their opinion in an election. Something Hamas deprives its people of, preferring repression and summary justice against those who disagree, and something denied to the people of Saudi Arabia, our largest arms trading partner.

Neverstopwondering · 08/09/2026 09:06

If the Israelis were to 100% vote for what the op suggests could happen then op has a valid argument.

That is never going to happen in any country that holds fair elections.

Definitely not one that has so many Jewish citizens in its population ;o)

So what was originally suggested by op is just a pure prejudice response towards citizens of a country because op doesn't like the choices their government make.

Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 09:09

@SharonEllis, @Twiglets1, why are you trying to discuss these other countries. Israel is the only country I know of at the moment who are officially expressing a desire and intent to commit the war crime of ethnic cleansing. I am sure that if they succeed there will an ICJ case brought against them as there is with Myanmar which is soon to be concluded. You keep saying that Ben Gvir doesn't speak for the Israeli people. I'm sorry but he is a democratically elected government minister so he literally and formally speaks for the Israeli people. That is the whole point of a representative democracy. However, if the Israeli people truly oppose his Disengagement 710 plan, surely they would express this opposition by demonstrating to try and stop it from happening.

OP posts:
Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 09:29

Neverstopwondering · 08/09/2026 09:06

If the Israelis were to 100% vote for what the op suggests could happen then op has a valid argument.

That is never going to happen in any country that holds fair elections.

Definitely not one that has so many Jewish citizens in its population ;o)

So what was originally suggested by op is just a pure prejudice response towards citizens of a country because op doesn't like the choices their government make.

Edited

This is actually where I wanted to go with this argument. I was in Thailand recently and I saw restaurants with signs that said no Israelis. I thought that is so wrong and illegal, even in Thailand. I questioned one of the restaurant owners about it and at first they said it was because they had some unruly customers but then it became obvious it was about the Gaza situation. It then got me thinking about the question I posed on this thread. Is there a point when it is acceptable to blame a society as a whole. Obviously a 100% of Israelis are not going to support this plan. We already know that because B'Tselem, for one, have expressed strong opposition. But what if 90% support it. What about 75% or even 51%. Is it morally unacceptable to blame an entire society if just 1 person opposes the plan.

OP posts:
Twiglets1 · 08/09/2026 09:50

Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 09:09

@SharonEllis, @Twiglets1, why are you trying to discuss these other countries. Israel is the only country I know of at the moment who are officially expressing a desire and intent to commit the war crime of ethnic cleansing. I am sure that if they succeed there will an ICJ case brought against them as there is with Myanmar which is soon to be concluded. You keep saying that Ben Gvir doesn't speak for the Israeli people. I'm sorry but he is a democratically elected government minister so he literally and formally speaks for the Israeli people. That is the whole point of a representative democracy. However, if the Israeli people truly oppose his Disengagement 710 plan, surely they would express this opposition by demonstrating to try and stop it from happening.

Why are you singling out Israel is a more salient point. They are not the only country to have extreme leaders in government at the moment.

We see you.

Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 09:56

Twiglets1 · 08/09/2026 09:50

Why are you singling out Israel is a more salient point. They are not the only country to have extreme leaders in government at the moment.

We see you.

Name me another country that has officially announced to the world that it intends to ethnically cleanse millions of people from the country.

OP posts:
Ipsevenenabibas · 08/09/2026 10:02

Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 09:29

This is actually where I wanted to go with this argument. I was in Thailand recently and I saw restaurants with signs that said no Israelis. I thought that is so wrong and illegal, even in Thailand. I questioned one of the restaurant owners about it and at first they said it was because they had some unruly customers but then it became obvious it was about the Gaza situation. It then got me thinking about the question I posed on this thread. Is there a point when it is acceptable to blame a society as a whole. Obviously a 100% of Israelis are not going to support this plan. We already know that because B'Tselem, for one, have expressed strong opposition. But what if 90% support it. What about 75% or even 51%. Is it morally unacceptable to blame an entire society if just 1 person opposes the plan.

Generally, yes—it is morally unacceptable to blame an entire society when even one person opposes the plan, because opposition by one individual doesn't establish that the broader society supports, caused, or is responsible for the plan.

Twiglets1 · 08/09/2026 10:10

Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 09:56

Name me another country that has officially announced to the world that it intends to ethnically cleanse millions of people from the country.

You are attempting to blame the civilian population for the words of its most extremist ministers. Which I don't see you doing for any other country.

The elections are only next month and Ben Gvir will likely no longer even be in the new government.

Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 10:14

Ipsevenenabibas · 08/09/2026 10:02

Generally, yes—it is morally unacceptable to blame an entire society when even one person opposes the plan, because opposition by one individual doesn't establish that the broader society supports, caused, or is responsible for the plan.

Not sure I agree with that. I feel that if the vast majority of a society actively or even passively support a plan which is morally wrong, I feel it is reasonable to apportion blame to that society as a whole. Question is though, what is the vast majority in terms of a percentage.

OP posts:
Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 10:20

Twiglets1 · 08/09/2026 10:10

You are attempting to blame the civilian population for the words of its most extremist ministers. Which I don't see you doing for any other country.

The elections are only next month and Ben Gvir will likely no longer even be in the new government.

Actually I think I mentioned my opposition to Reform on this very thread. I guess we will have to revisit this topic after the election then. Considering Ben Gvir is using his Disengagement 710 plan as his main platform, what would you make of it if he doesn't lose?

OP posts:
Neverstopwondering · 08/09/2026 10:43

Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 10:14

Not sure I agree with that. I feel that if the vast majority of a society actively or even passively support a plan which is morally wrong, I feel it is reasonable to apportion blame to that society as a whole. Question is though, what is the vast majority in terms of a percentage.

To look at this from a different but rather obvious angle

Do you feel the plan for 7th October 2023 was the fault of the Gazen population depending on what percentage of Gazens support Hamas or whether they actively protested again the massacre?

If the majority of Gazens support Hamas or haven't show much objection to what happened then surely all Gazens should be held responsible by your own logic.

You can't have your own cake and eat it when we are talking morals regarding judgement on one group of people because of their leadership

Neverstopwondering · 08/09/2026 10:55

Are we really going to haggle about percentage of a group agreement when talking about prejudice treatment of individuals?

Sorry but if say the majority of Welsh people supported segregation of English people in Wales. Would we be prejudice against every Welsh person we ever met? Bar them from hotels, events, jobs etc in the UK? Or if Nigeria actively cracked down on their Islamic extremist issues of Christian killings by govement policy of violence or relocation and this was supported by the majority of Nigerians. Do we in the UK actively blame all the Nigerians here and act prejudice against them?

SharonEllis · 08/09/2026 11:31

Its hate speech.

ForRedPoet · 08/09/2026 11:33

Squeezingwildoranges · 08/09/2026 09:56

Name me another country that has officially announced to the world that it intends to ethnically cleanse millions of people from the country.

1)Israel hasn't said or done any ethnic cleansing. I'm not going to argue about 20% of Israelis being Arab, pausing the war to allow the IDF to allow vaccines through, air raid sirens and other notifications to warn and displace civilians prior to bombing etc..

2)Countries that have done ethnic cleansing include Iran, China, Yugoslavia, Iraq and the worst I have seen in my lifetime, Sudan.

  1. Countries that have said they want to ethnic cleanse more in the future: Iran, plus pretty much any country run by an Islamic Fundamentalist government.
SharonEllis · 08/09/2026 12:15

ForRedPoet · 08/09/2026 11:33

1)Israel hasn't said or done any ethnic cleansing. I'm not going to argue about 20% of Israelis being Arab, pausing the war to allow the IDF to allow vaccines through, air raid sirens and other notifications to warn and displace civilians prior to bombing etc..

2)Countries that have done ethnic cleansing include Iran, China, Yugoslavia, Iraq and the worst I have seen in my lifetime, Sudan.

  1. Countries that have said they want to ethnic cleanse more in the future: Iran, plus pretty much any country run by an Islamic Fundamentalist government.

Well, Hamas have made their genocidal intentions very clear.

OpheliaWasntMad · 08/09/2026 13:43

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Agreed.
I think the question itself comes from an antisemitic mindset.

JadeHare · 08/09/2026 13:49

It would appear that Ed Miliband would disagree:

He turns to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank that are deemed illegal under international law, noting that "more settlements have been approved under the four years of this Israeli government than in the previous 20 years".
Miliband explains: "Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN as 'a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas'.
"The British government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank - perpetrated by settler terrorists.
"And all too often, the Israeli government has turned a blind eye to this and worse, members of it have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians," he says.

JadeHare · 08/09/2026 14:05

Oh dear. Now what?

Ipsevenenabibas · 08/09/2026 14:05

Miliband is entitled to his view, but this is a very selective way of presenting an extremely complicated situation.
Israel has every right to exist and to protect its citizens from terrorism, and that context cannot simply be removed from the discussion.

The West Bank is disputed territory with competing historical, legal and national claims, and presenting the entire issue as a straightforward case of Israel deliberately carrying out “ethnic cleansing” is a serious oversimplification.
If individual settlers are attacking Palestinians, forcing people from their homes or committing crimes, they should be prosecuted. There is no justification for terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, regardless of whether the perpetrators are Palestinian or Israeli.

But we should also apply the same moral standard to Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups. Israel has faced decades of terrorism, rocket attacks, hostage-taking and, most recently, the deliberate massacre and kidnapping of Israeli civilians. Israel cannot reasonably be expected to ignore threats to its population while the international community focuses almost exclusively on Israeli actions.

And opposing settlement expansion is not the same as proving an Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing. That is an extraordinarily serious accusation and requires much more than pointing to the number of settlements approved.
You can criticise particular Israeli government policies, condemn extremist settlers and support Palestinian rights while still recognising that Israel is a legitimate state whose people have an equal right to security, self-determination and freedom from terrorism.

The answer isn't to demonise one side. It is to demand the same standards of justice and accountability from everyone.

JadeHare · 08/09/2026 14:12

Miliband (Jewish) and the British Government.

Neverstopwondering · 08/09/2026 14:12

Timing is everything in British politics (Interesting local soon that will end up labourvs Greens)

This declaration has more to do with what is currently happening in the UK than what is happening in Israel

No excuse for settler violence at all but the whole ethic cleansing and occupied territories is such a daft notion. Jordan lost a war it was always up to Israel under international law what they did with the land because that is how it illegally works in those situations. Israel caved in to this ridiculous half in half out scenario because of international pressure once the won the land back from the Arab occupying forces in 1967. If the had just kept the land and said sod the fuck off back then a lot of death and heartache would not be happening now.

Quite frankly European countries in particular need to start keeping their ideas of how to make peace in the Middle East to themselves. The UK is particularly criminal minded in the way they have used Israel for their own political reasons. This started when they pulled out of the British mandate (look at the way they did that) and the way the British politicians acted during the hostage months was horrific to say the less. They actually were a hindrance to hostage negotiations and a peace settlement on mote than one occasion. It is not beneficial for Britain if Israel has peace. Once you understand the reasons behind keeping Israel permanently on self defense you see British and European politics a little differently when they talk about the middle East.

Neverstopwondering · 08/09/2026 14:17

JadeHare · 08/09/2026 14:12

Miliband (Jewish) and the British Government.

Oh Jewish that must be a win then

Seriously listen to yourself

That was as iffy thing to point out as ops proposed premise of prejudice towards citizens or place of birth on the basis of government policy in Israel.

Red Ed is called red Ed for a reason

The current British government are just a slightly more respectable version of the current Green party. I say that as someone coming from a traditionally all Labour voting family

JadeHare · 08/09/2026 14:17

Ah yes. The automatic shifting of the goal posts.

Ipsevenenabibas · 08/09/2026 14:19

JadeHare · 08/09/2026 14:12

Miliband (Jewish) and the British Government.

Identity or heritage is not a substitute for evidence.

Neverstopwondering · 08/09/2026 14:20

Timing is everything in British politics (Interesting local soon that will end up labourvs Greens)

Edit for above sorry:

Timing is everything in British politics (Interesting local election soon that will end up labour vs Greens)

Swipe left for the next trending thread