Human rights groups and lawyers say ‘voluntary migration’ policy amounts to ethnic cleansing

Israel’s defence minister has said he is committed to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza through large-scale migration of Palestinians as part of Israel’s long-term plans for the territory.

…

The forced transfer of civilian populations is a war crime and a crime against humanity. Israeli officials, including Katz, use the term “voluntary migration” to describe their plans for large numbers of Palestinians to leave Gaza.

Israel-based human rights organisations and lawyers have warned that the conditions Israel has imposed on Gaza mean no departure can be considered voluntary and the policy constitutes planning for ethnic cleansing.

  • PugJesus@piefed.socialEnglish
    3·
    5 days ago

    Refugees absolutely do not have to go “home” if they don’t want to. They should always have the right to, but it’s equally okay if they settle and build a new home that’s hopefully far away from people wanting to murder them for their ethnicity. They are people, not weapons with which to bring justice to those that attacked them.

    The notion pushed by neoliberals that migration is temporary should be recognized as an excuse to ensure continued alienation between two different groups of workers and to make a large group of workers permanently at the mercy of corporations that hire them and states that have a mandate to fuck them over at a moment’s notice.

    Refugees and immigrants are related, but generally considered separate, phenomena. Refugees, for this reason, are often restricted from being hired by corporations in civilized countries to avoid exactly that kind of exploitation.

    Some refugees become immigrants. The reverse is not so.

    • Tiresia@slrpnk.netEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      Refugees, for this reason, are often restricted from being hired by corporations in civilized countries to avoid exactly that kind of exploitation.

      How many of the “civilized countries” you’re thinking of are materially contributing to the genocide of Palestinians? How many people have they killed or caused to die by violently enforcing standards of what they consider to be a proper refugee or a proper migrant, and manipulating those standards based on the needs of the rich?

      Can you please think for yourself rather than referring to what is “generally considered” or what “civilized countries” do? Or, alternatively, can you stop hiding behind popular opinion and say the quiet part out loud?

      • PugJesus@piefed.socialEnglish
        2·
        5 days ago

        How many of the “civilized countries” you’re thinking of are materially contributing to the genocide of Palestinians? How many people have they killed or caused to die by violently enforcing standards of what they consider to be a proper refugee or a proper migrant, and manipulating those standards based on the needs of the rich?

        … I’m not sure you understand asylum law.

        Can you please think for yourself rather than referring to what is “generally considered” or what “civilized countries” do?

        … this is literally a question of semantics and legal definitions. Unless you’ve decided to become some new kind of iconoclastic guerilla prescriptivist, both of those matters are pretty innately connected to the issue being discussed.

        Or, alternatively, can you stop hiding behind popular opinion and say the quiet part out loud?

        what

        • Tiresia@slrpnk.netEnglish
          1·
          5 days ago

          The only way to make the question whether refugees are expected to “go home” a semantic issue is if your stance is if you believe that when someone runs away from genocide it is their free choice between becoming a refugee or becoming a migrant.

          This is a coherent position, but it is not one held by “civilized countries”, their legal systems, or any English dictionary I expect you’ll be able to find that wasn’t written by AI.

          Otherwise, you are expecting things from someone based on something that happened to them involuntarily, or based on the legal system of where-ever they were able to flee to for shelter, and that is a proactive ethical stance.

          and manipulating those standards based on the needs of the rich?

          … I’m not sure you understand asylum law.

          Perhaps I don’t. How has asylum law avoided being changed by neoliberalism and neoconservatism?

          • PugJesus@piefed.socialEnglish
            1·
            5 days ago

            The only way to make the question whether refugees are expected to “go home” a semantic issue is if your stance is if you believe that when someone runs away from genocide it is their free choice between becoming a refugee or becoming a migrant.

            … that… that is literally the case.

            Those who remain refugees are expressing a desire to return to their countries of origin. They are seeking refuge rather than permanent residency, and that’s what the entire fucking structure of asylum law is based around.

            Those who are refugees but decide they would rather not return to their country of origin even once the danger has passed apply through their host country’s laws to become immigrants to that country.

            Otherwise, you are expecting things from someone based on something that happened to them involuntarily,

            … that’s… that’s all of life, man.

            or based on the legal system of where-ever they were able to flee to for shelter,

            … generally the expectation of legal systems is that the person in question will adhere to the laws, yes.

            Perhaps I don’t. How has asylum law avoided being changed by neoliberalism and neoconservatism?

            Asylum law wouldn’t exist at all if it was only a question of the interests of the rich. Refugees provide no benefit to the ultrawealthy or corporations, again, in civilized countries, precisely because they are not part of the labor pool, yet remain an expense which discourages the central government from cutting taxes further. On top of that, that refugees are a lawful and recognized position strips corporations of their ability to exploit them the way they would other classes of migrant - meaning that it is in the interests of the rich to see asylum law abolished entirely, not some bizarre notion that refugees being a protected class is somehow in the interests of the ultra-wealthy.