Ethnic Cleansing

By Walter E. Block

Ethnic cleansing has a bad press. For example, states Michal Mann [1]: “Ethnic cleansing is one of the main evils of modern times.” Arne Johan Vetlesen mentions “The logic and practice of collective evil: ‘ethnic cleansing.’” In the view of Moshe Ya’alon, former officer of the IDF, Israel was becoming a “corrupt and leprous fascist Messianic state… Conquering, annexing, ethnic cleansing – look at northern Gaza,” he said. Avers Human Rights Watch: “Israeli authorities have caused a forced displacement of Palestinian people in Gaza to an extent that constitutes war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Consider the following. Country A invades country B. It is a totally unwarranted attack. B did not previously violate any rights of A in any manner, shape or form. B was entirely innocent in all relations between the two.

At the end of this war, begun solely by A, the good guys prevailed. B won a decisive victory. So much so that when peace broke out upon the surrender of A, B occupied one quarter of the territory previously held by A.

Now what happens? According to one theory of just war and international relations, B is duty bound to relinquish this real estate it has won from the evil nation A. Why? That is because national boundaries are somehow sacrosanct. They are never, ever, to be altered no matter how justified a change might otherwise be considered.

As against that, deliberate upon the following. Suppose that private person C stole individual D’s rightfully owned horse, at gun-point. The proper punishment for the former would not be, merely, to compel him to return this animal to the latter, the rightful owner. Justice would cry out, additionally, for D to do to C what C first did to D. Namely, at the very least, the court would rule that the horse thief, C, should be compelled to give to D, the victim, one of his own horses of equal value. (C should be punished far more harshly than that; but this should be the least of his chastisement.)

Why the wide disparity between how criminal country A should be treated compared to equally criminal, C, an individual? Why should C lose a horse of his own, and A should not be deprived of one square inch of its territory? We will get to that in due course. (Hint, it concerns ethnic cleansing).

So much for that theory. Now, let us contemplate another one, an entirely different one, a correct one.  Here, there is a very strong analogy between A the country and C the individual. Both should be treated in a similar manner; nay, an identical manner insofar as is possible. D should keep one of C’s horses and B should stay put on the one quarter of A’s land it had captured via an entirely defensive war. (But D is entitled to not one but two horses now in C’s possession; should B take over not one quarter but one half of A’s territory? We will leave that query for another day).

What are the arguments in behalf of this second theory? Both A and C should be punished equally, since they are responsible for the same sorts of law violations. On deontological grounds, justice is best served by penalizing both malefactors, at least roughly equally, since they are guilty of the same sort of crime (Actually, A is far worse; that country is guilty of murder, kidnapping; C only stole some physical property). From a utilitarian or pragmatic point of view, we will have less bad behavior, less criminality, if law breakers are severely reprimanded, than if they are allowed to get off scott-free.

However, there is a fly in the ointment here. If we award B one quarter of A’s territory (let alone a full half of it), what of the A citizens occupying this region? B does not want them to join its country. B fears that these people will serve as a fifth column against them. True, A lost this particular war, but if allowed to become a part of B, these citizens of A will try again to conquer B. Moreover, virtually all the citizens of A in this area were fervent supporters of the war against B.

The only way to have our cake and eat it too, the only way to reconcile the unreconcileable, is to, wait for it, engage in ethnic cleansing. B must engage in a policy of forced exclusion of the citizens of A who have long resided in this area newly conquered by B. Now this removal of the civilian population need not be done in a harsh manner. It should be accomplished in the gentlest way compatible with their removal, presumably to the rest of country A. If this warmongering nation is to be punished by losing some of its territory, this is the only way to accomplish that goal, to promote justice. (I can just hear the victims of the Holocaust saying to the Germans, “Please, ethnically cleanse us; kick us out of your country.)

When Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula after its defensive war with Egypt, the issue of ethnic cleansing did not arise. There were so few Egyptians living in that area. The Golan Heights was an intermediate case in this regard, insofar as population density is concerned. But what is to happen with Gaza, when all the hostilities have ceased, after the hostages are released, upon the surrender of Hamas?

To leave two million Palestinians in situ, as part of Israel, is to undermine the latter country. The Gazans were overwhelmingly and enthusiastically supporters of the depraved attack of Hamas on Israel on October 7, 2023. To forcibly relocate them would constitute ethnic cleansing, something not very popular on the part of those whose adherence for simple elemental justice is sorely lacking. I speak here, unfortunately, of the majority of world opinion.

Israel is now engaged in new construction in Gaza. This means they intend, not ever, to leave. Hamas started the war of October 7, 2023 with a despicable attack on civilians at a music festival and equally innocent members of a nearby kibbutz. The enemies of Israel must be taught an important lesson. When you attack this country, in addition to suffering human losses, you will also be forced to relinquish land. Maybe, then, there will be less warmongering on the part of the neighbors of the only civilized country in the Middle East.

To whence should the Gazans be repatriated? Well, Hamas was the proximate cause of the war. If there were a Hamasistan, located a few hundred miles away from Israel, that would be a reasonable placement. But there is no such entity. Another candidate would be Hezbollahstan. On October 8, the very next day after Hamas started its war with Israel, this terrorist organization began bombing northern Israel, in support of their brothers in arms. So another possibility is to move the Gazans to Lebanon, hopefully to the north of that nation, as far away as possible from Israel. This country, at least up until a few months ago, might almost have been considered a Hezbollahstan, at least in terms of ultimate authority there. But that group, too, like Hamas, is on its last legs, thanks to the IDF. It no longer controls, even partially, any country that could house the Gazans.

Who remains? Iran, of course. That country is not only indirectly responsible for the evils wrought by its proxies, the triple Hs. Will the Iranians accepts two million Gazans, the plight of whom for which they are responsible? Do not bet the family farm on it. I only say this would be by far the most just solution.

As a practical matter, Israel has more than good and sufficient reason to conquer that nation. Not merely to eradicate its nuclear capacity and set ablaze its oil fields, but to force it to surrender. And, as part of that situation, to undergo a regime change and accept two million Gazans, each and every last one of them.

[1] Michael Mann   The Dark-Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing Cambridge University Press, 2004