Letting Palestinians Move Is Not "Ethnic Cleansing"

Care about humanity, not stupid word games

If you’re a keen observer of political discourse, you at some point realize that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who care about principles, ideas, and humanity, and those who care about definitions.

When approaching important questions, I tend to ask things like: How does a particular policy impact the people involved? Are the rights of individuals being respected? Is how I think about this issue consistent with how I think about similar situations, and if not, can the difference be justified? And so on.

Many others, however, are playing a different game. They start with the definition of a word or phrase. Then they decide that the right policy to support depends on how closely a proposal or idea matches that definition. If someone brings forth an argument for a course of action, they’ll reply, “But this is X!”

Ideally, definitions exist to facilitate communication. Here, they are used to shut down debate. Imagine a discussion over taxes, and a libertarian goes “taxation is theft.” This might be technically correct. Theft means taking something from someone without their permission. Government taxes me even though practically speaking I had no say in the matter. Ok, by that definition, I’ll agree that taxation is theft.

If you don’t want to be trapped into becoming an anarcho-capitalist, there are two things you can do at that point. One may arbitrarily change the definition of “theft” by saying that it doesn’t count if government does it. The definition used to be “taking something without the consent of the owner,” while the new definition is “taking something without the consent of the owner, unless it’s government doing the taking.” The other approach is to say that this is a stupid way to debate. We can have whatever definition of “theft” that we want. That doesn’t tell us whether, or at what rates, governments should be allowed to tax their citizens.

For a long time, I’ve been arguing that the best solution to the conflict in the Middle East involves the Palestinians being allowed to move. It appears that Trump is making a concerted push towards such an outcome. So far, the Arab states aren’t budging, but there are many other countries out there, the US has leverage across the developing world, and I don’t see why such an effort can’t succeed in the long run. We’re at the stage where talk of resettlement is just being put on the table, and it should become normalized over time as people get used to the idea and come to realize that there are no other realistic solutions.

This would be a clearly positive development. In every other armed struggle in the world, the idea that you should let vulnerable people leave isn’t controversial. When Sudanese and Burmese refugees are resettled, that is considered better than leaving them in a war zone. Even poor people who are not in the midst of a war are seen sympathetically when they want to move to a new area and better their lives.

Armenia had a population of 3.6 million in 1991. Today, that number is approximately 20% lower. Armenian TFR is below replacement, but the population is still growing in terms of natural increase, which is simply number of births minus number of deaths. The population decline over the last generation has therefore been exclusively due to outmigration. No one other than perhaps some Armenian nationalists considers this a tragedy. And we shouldn’t, because if you care about Armenians at all, you want to give them more options about where to live instead of fewer.

The fact that Armenia has been involved in a long-standing conflict with Azerbaijan does not change the calculation. I have not heard anyone say that it was once fine for Armenians to leave, but since the hot war with Azerbaijan started up again over the last few years they all must be forced to stay where they are and suffer because otherwise we will have ethnic cleansing. Human beings, their well-being, and their rights to make decisions are what matter, not words.

An Armenian in Southern California. She doesn’t look “ethnically cleansed” to me

It is only when it comes to the Israel-Palestine question that “ethnic cleansing” is used to shut down common sense arguments. And even if you do believe in arguing by definition, the opponents of resettlement are still standing on weak ground, since the term they are using to shut down debate doesn’t even have an agreed upon definition. Here’s what the UN has to say about the topic.

As ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing 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.”

If there is no accepted definition of ethnic cleansing, then arguably a Palestinian resettlement program wouldn’t count. One might respond, however, that something can count as “ethnic cleansing” if it meets every possible definition of the term, even if no definition is considered authoritative. Even here, however, opponents of resettlement must fail. Take the first definition listed above, which includes “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous.” I looked up “homogenous,” which Dictionary.com defines as “of uniform structure or composition throughout.” This means that if Palestinians all leave Gaza, as long as Israeli settlers don’t replace them, the territory can’t be ethnically cleansed because it wouldn’t be “homogenous” since no one would live there. And even if Israeli settlers did move in, as long as one Palestinian stayed behind, again the area would not be homogenous. To show Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing, then, one would need to present evidence that there is a plan for both Israelis to settle in Gaza and make sure there are no Palestinians left, which no one has yet done.

Let’s go to the second definition: 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. Again, I think by this definition you still need to remove all Palestinians. The phrase “to remove… the civilian population” doesn’t have a qualifier. It doesn’t say “some” or “most” civilians. There’s no homogeneity requirement in this definition, so it doesn’t depend on whether Israelis move in.

The Trump administration of course likewise cannot be accused of engaging in ethnic cleansing if it tries to help move Palestinians to other countries. After all, it was never America’s intention to use violence and terror to induce civilians to leave Gaza. Trump is simply trying to get vulnerable people out of a conflict zone, which civilized nations do all the time.

I could probably keep looking for definitions until finding one that fits. What does any of this prove? Not much. Someone who is anti-resettlement might say “that’s not fair! You’re saying that you can avoid ethnic cleansing by leaving a single Palestinian behind? What an absurd technicality. Wait here while I google a different definition.” Hey, I’m not the one who thinks we should have debates based on the definitions of words. I’m just going by the first two definitions listed by the UN, which is usually considered an authoritative source on such matters. If you’re uninterested in higher ideals and the well-being of actual human beings, but instead think that policy should be determined by who can cite the most unpleasant sounding words, then you’ve got to live by your principles and accept the outcome of “Rule by Dictionary.”

My priorities are ending the war, ensuring the survival of Israel, and accomplishing both those goals in a way that leads to a humane outcome for the Palestinians. I don’t think a Palestinian state is possible, so hoping for that is like hoping for Santa Claus to come solve the conflict, and even if it were I see no reason why humanity should want such a thing. Finding ways for Palestinians to leave as refugees would achieve the best outcome for all involved. The morality of such a policy is therefore open-and-shut to me.

Instead of arguing about the definition of “ethnic cleansing,” it’s better to get beyond word games and address the underlying concerns people have. Many operate based on the assumption that not many Palestinians would leave voluntarily, as Glenn Greenwald recently asserted without evidence. Yet a poll conducted before the war showed that about a quarter of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza wanted to emigrate. Among the under 30 in Gaza, the number was 44%. Since the territory has been leveled, those numbers are surely higher now. If half of young people in Gaza leave, it will be much more difficult for the Palestinian movement to continue putting forth extremist demands, and then those who remain will most likely eventually have to accept the existence of Israel. Even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn’t improve as a result of the depopulation of Gaza, simply reducing the number of civilians in the area and letting some individuals go abroad would be a humanitarian victory anyway. Anyone who believes that Gaza is an “open air prison camp” must agree that keeping two million people in such a condition is worse than keeping one million.

People tend to want to leave poor nations in large numbers even in the absence of conflict. It’s reasonable to think that even if the war and occupation ended today, a huge portion of Palestinians would still want to flee. They aren’t that different from human beings all around the world. Palestinians are just given fewer possibilities to improve their lives because much of the Muslim world and the international left see them as the tip of the spear in a struggle to destroy Israel.

Given that they never cite polling data, where do Greenwald and others like him get the idea that Palestinians are happy to stay where they are? I think that people on the nationalist right and anti-American left both make a similar mistake in accepting the views of tyrants as legitimately representing the aspirations of those they rule over. A large portion of individual Cubans and North Koreans would like to leave their countries. Their governments want them to stay. When someone says “Cubans want X,” you should ask whether they are actually talking about Cubans or Miguel Díaz-Canel, the guy who replaced the second Castro brother in 2021.

Hamas has political goals. It would be difficult to accomplish those goals if too many Palestinians left to start new lives abroad. Civilians in Gaza can be taxed, bring in aid revenue for the local government, and serve as cannon fodder and human shields in the conflict with the Israelis. It makes sense that, given Hamas’ value system, it would want to keep Palestinians in Gaza. There is no good reason, however, for anyone who actually cares about their well-being or achieving peace to take a similar position.