Cool starting point. Conveniently after the two most prominent examples of ethnic cleansing of the 21st century. The massive movement of ethnic groups and redrawing of borders following the first and second world wars. Where millions of persons were shuttled around following the redrawing of national borders.
It's not an arbitrary starting point. The Fourth Geneva Conventions explicitly spelled out crimes against humanity and we signed and ratified it. Prior to that point, it was not considered a violation in international law. If this isn't such a big deal and it's such a common occurrence, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide some examples from the last 75 years since we signed it? That's all I'm asking for. Otherwise, your argument is simply that international law with regards to military actions and occupation doesn't matter and US citizens shouldn't hold its government accountable to it.
Oh that's why we created the United Nations? To end ethnic cleansing? Damn. Must have missed that in articles 1-2 of the charter. This idea that we all came to the conclusion that "ethnic cleansing" was wrong sometime between between 1945-1950 is preposterously stupid. People were plenty smart and plenty moral in 1919 and 1945. They were plenty practical too. Poland needed a national territory. Ok, well, you're going to be taking land from Germans and you're going to be taking land from Austrians. Is it pleasant and ideal? No but thems the breaks. Hard and practical decisions had to be made and they were.
It's a starting point right after the largest ethnic cleansing in human history and one the United States had a direct hand in. Same for WW1. Your arbitrary starting point doesn't require you to answer or opine on those events. It is very convenient for you.
You continue to ignore that the United States signed and ratified the Fourth Geneva Conventions. Is it really your position that this means nothing for actions that were not considered against international law prior to that signing? I don't dispute that massive population transfers occurred in the period between the end of World War 2 and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. One can scrutinize and find fault with how that was handled in retrospect. But it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the treaty we signed in 1949 and our obligations to uphold it. Sorry.
You can continue to ignore the fact the United States took a direct hand in resolving WW1 and WW2 which included some of the largest ethnic cleansings in human history. I love you use decided to label those as "massive population transfers" - instead of using the term ethnic cleansing. Funny how people pick and choose their language based on their narrative.
I got news for you buddy if you think America went into World Wars because they wanted to stop ethnic cleansing. America stumbled into the right side of history in WW2. Before Hitler expanded beyond Germany a large section of the America public supported the new fascist regimes rising in Europe.
I mean, this is just totally incorrect and completely ahistorical concerning the United States and WW2. But I also didn't suggest the United States went into either World War with the aim of ending ethnic cleansing. So, congratulations, you're completely wrong on both points.
I was referring to the wording of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. Whether we call it "ethnic cleansing" or the more verbose "forced mass population transfer under a military occupation without right of return" doesn't really change my argument. The US become party to a treaty that expressly forbids it in 1949. As an American citizen, I expect my government and the allies to whom we give billions in military aid to uphold that treaty. We can have a discussion on the "ethnic cleansing"/"mass population transfer" that the US facilitated as part of the post-WW2 agreements, but its perhaps a digression for this thread. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of it, not a good outcome, so this doesn't exactly delegitimize subsequent agreements to no longer take that path.
Name a powerful industrial business leader in 1930s America. I bet my left nut they supported the fascist movements in Europe at the time. It's like a 90% hit rate if you just randomly point a finger on a list of the wealthiest industrialists in America at that time. They supported it because they saw it has a movement that destroys labor organization. The antisemitism was just a cherry on top for them.
The nation's industrial leaders mostly having affinity for fascist movements in the 1930s because they saw it as a movement that suppresses and attacks labor organization has a lot do with my assertion that there was a large fascist acceptance movement in the 1930s in America headed by some of the wealthiest most influential Americans during that time
Does anyone find it morbidly funny that Trump unwillingly exposes Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign of the past year that was supported by Biden? Dude is literally saying "They have to move out, the place is a demolition zone". Thanks woke president Trump for making America finally acknowledging Israel's war crimes. There are some small tidbits of benefits from having a really stupid president. They are few and far between.
The israelis are on *record* saying they werent going to occupy gaza bcz of Biden. If youre still saying both trump and Biden had the same positions then youre being a disingenuous hack. Argue on facts not lies. Biden was not optimal on Gaza but his state dept made it very clear they wouldn't allow any displacement of Palestinians
"The city us a demolition site".... Which administration funded the legwork that created a demolition site? Which administration circumvented the Leahy law to keep on funding the means to make it a demolition site?
Again. I have never said at any point bidens handling of the war was optimal. I'm saying the biden admin made it very very clear that no displacement of Palestinians would be allowed under them. The only reason the IDF didn't do a full ground invasion of southern gaza was bcz of biden. Trump's stance is still 1000x worst. Biden wouldn't have allowed us soliders to occupy gaza. Anyone claiming both sides have the same stance should be ashamed of themselves
To me those were empty words from Biden. When he went out of his way to fund turning Gaza into a demolition site he knew all along that the eventual outcome would be they have to leave. Hundreds of thousands of people literally need shelter that Gaza can't provide right now. Biden knew that would be the outcome. I get you have an affinity for Biden. Hell I think he was one of the best presidents when it came to domestic policy in a long time mainly because of Lina Khan and his relatively more pro labor union advocacy when compared to prior prssidents . But man what he did with Gaza was just ****ed up.
They are empty words cuz you don't argue in good faith. Two things can be true at the same time. Bidens handling of gaza sucked while Trumps handling is 100x worst. Not everything has to be both sides. Try being an adult and think critically. The israelis and BIBI are on record stating they were only going to annex land only if trump won cuz the biden state department made it clear they wouldn't allow it. Grow up man seriously.
Budy I'm placing blame on the current demolished state of Gaza at Biden's feet. That in no way makes me believe Trump is on equal terms of evil as Biden. Absolutely not. I blame the state of Gaza on Biden(in relation to American support). That's all. Trust me when I say Trump is significantly worse for Palestinians... For left handed people, brunnets, people who like blue cheese dressing, dwarves and the rest of mankind also.
Hes now threatening sanctions on anyone who doesn't go alongside his ethnic cleansing @Nook What a utter embarrassment. Jesus christ
