Trump wants Jordan and Egypt to accept more refugees and floats plan to 'just clean out' Gaza
Trump wants Jordan and Egypt to accept more refugees and floats plan to 'just clean out' Gaza
President Donald Trump says he’d like to see Arab nations increase the number of Palestinian refugees they are accepting from the Gaza Strip — potentially moving out enough of the population to “clean out” the area to create a virtual clean slate.
…
“Something has to happen,” Trump said. “But it’s literally a demolition site right now. Almost everything’s demolished, and people are dying there.” He added: “So, I’d rather get involved with some of the Arab nations, and build housing in a different location, where they can maybe live in peace for a change.”
You're viewing a single thread.
Putting the Palestinians from Gaza in other Arab countries and giving their remaining land to Israel sounds like a recipe for destruction of their national identity.
Forcible resettlements are not listed in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II, but in my opinion the essential effect would be achieved none the less.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
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:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Jordan already has a majority Palestinian population. I don’t think intent to destroy fits, so it’s not genocide.
Forced displacement and ethnic cleansing can be crimes against humanity though.
Giving Gazans the option to relocate to Jordan voluntarily is not a crime.
I didn't want to touch on the intent question, because to some degree it's not knowable from the outside and to some degree there is a multitude of intents out there. And since the resettlement already doesn't fit the "method" criteria I thought I didn't have to.
For what it's worth I think Trump is more likely just trying to quiet the situation in a heavy handed way, for a political win, and to satisfy Israeli interests and maybe also to satisfy some interest groups local to him. I don't think he has a reason to want to destroy Palestine as a nation or identity. On the other hand he also wouldn't give much of a shit about their interests. And of course he spouts this stuff quickly, without careful analysis beforehand, as always.
In contrast I think some of the Israeli parties, the extreme settler ones, probably would like the Palestinian Identity gone, so they can "finally" claim all the land they want to call Israel.
As for Netanyahu, I don't know. Sometimes I felt like what he wanted most was a continued frozen conflict because it stabilizes him in domestic politics. But when the conflict heated up he changed to strongman tactics. What's next I don't understand well. Does he want to re-freeze, or find some sort of lasting resolution...
I didn’t want to touch on the intent question
Intent is essential for genocide. Dolus specialis, look it up.
Trump
Reportedly Trump has been already influential in bringing about the current ceasefire and hostage exchange. There’s potential for the situation to change significantly. Annexation of parts of the West Bank is a possibility.
Netanyahu wants to stay in power and out of prison. At the moment that means appeasing the extremists. He will likely not survive the upcoming Knesset investigation into October 7th politically.
Intent is essential for genocide. Dolus specialis, look it up.
Well yes, it was in the part I copied in the top comment, I didn't overlook it.
If you read the next sentence after your quote I gave the reasoning why I think we don't have to get into it for the analysis of these hypothetical circumstances: Article 2 already doesn't apply for other reasons.
Ah... One more international convention the USA will choose to ignore. It does not matter who is in government, the USA adheres to only very few of them