To add onto your comment, even Hamas doesn’t call for expulsion of all Jews from the area. Their position is that native Jews can stay - only the (mostly European) Jews who immigrated fairly recently have to go.
This is the position of the “extremist” group and other positions are more moderate. The Israeli fantasy of Jewish genocide is not well grounded.
I imagine if it came down to the practicalities of it that there wouldn’t be an attempt to wouldn’t actually try to expel everyone who settled since 1967/1948/whatever cut-off date they decided, so long as whoever stayed was willing to accept that they now lived under a new jurisdiction with none of the exceptional privileges.
I wouldn’t like to guess how many would choose to stay. I suppose we’d see how serious some were about that part of the world feeling like home by virtue of the location and it’s history rather than the fact of an Israeli government.
Assuming that it would be Hamas who did the decolonising. It might not be. And e.g. a Marxist or a secular leadership would likely have different ideas. I imagine they’d all agree on the basics: that Israel ceases to exist and a new institution/state/government is formed. (I’m phrasing it like this because when Marxists have seized power before, elsewhere, they don’t stick with the old name or the intermediate name.)
they don’t stick with the old name or the intermediate name.
To be fair, the intermediate name would somehow wind up being the Democratic People’s Republic of I̵͐̈́ͬ̑̈́̍̇̈͟͢͏̨͘͞͏̪̘̥̬̥̟̹ͅs̷̷̴̿ͯ͐ͩͯͯ̓̚͡҉͝҉̢̞̜̳̘̳̟̙̠ŗ̵͐͒̓́̒ͯ̑ͤ̀҉̡̝̭̙̩͇̫̦̤̀̀̕a̵̵̽ͨ͊ͥ̋̉ͭ̋҉̧̢̫̞̹̞̹̱̠̪̀̀͘ȩ̸̸̧̨͖̤̲̹͚̰̘̙̂̿̿̿ͥ̋͗̀͘͡͠l̸̸̨̾̈̇͛̓͛͂̽̀̕͟͠͏̵̡̩̝̠̤̭̺̟̙̌̃ͥ̌̽̏ͤͥ̕͟͠҉̸̲̟͉̲̖͎̦̺͞
Yes, I’m not a fan, either. For that reason and because it seems to be a grand perversion to argue that it’s genocide to fight back against the people trying to commit a genocide. If self defense becomes genocide at the point that the occupier gains the upper hand, it’s all meaningless. It would give carte blanche to any invading force that moved quickly enough and violently enough.
Maybe in other circumstances, where two indigenous neighbours try to wipe each other out? But that’s simply not the history of Palestine. Israel was created by forcibly dispossessing the previous inhabitants (who are still there or refugees elsewhere).
Maybe it would be genocide to decolonise (abolish) Palestine if Israel represented all Judaism or if more or less every Jew lived there. But neither of those is true, either. And as decolonising Palestine is not about removing Judaism but Zionist Israel, contrary to propaganda, I don’t see how genocide can apply. Again, except as a distortion of the meaning, as neither Zionism nor Israel are nations/ethnicities/religions.
Luckily the moral question is a lot more straightforward than the legal question.
Probably decolinisation of Palestine rather than the death of individuals.
Not sure if ‘reverse genocide’ is a thing but the question was raised a few days ago in another thread if you look for it.
To add onto your comment, even Hamas doesn’t call for expulsion of all Jews from the area. Their position is that native Jews can stay - only the (mostly European) Jews who immigrated fairly recently have to go.
This is the position of the “extremist” group and other positions are more moderate. The Israeli fantasy of Jewish genocide is not well grounded.
I imagine if it came down to the practicalities of it that there wouldn’t be an attempt to wouldn’t actually try to expel everyone who settled since 1967/1948/whatever cut-off date they decided, so long as whoever stayed was willing to accept that they now lived under a new jurisdiction with none of the exceptional privileges.
I wouldn’t like to guess how many would choose to stay. I suppose we’d see how serious some were about that part of the world feeling like home by virtue of the location and it’s history rather than the fact of an Israeli government.
Assuming that it would be Hamas who did the decolonising. It might not be. And e.g. a Marxist or a secular leadership would likely have different ideas. I imagine they’d all agree on the basics: that Israel ceases to exist and a new institution/state/government is formed. (I’m phrasing it like this because when Marxists have seized power before, elsewhere, they don’t stick with the old name or the intermediate name.)
To be fair, the intermediate name would somehow wind up being the Democratic People’s Republic of I̵͐̈́ͬ̑̈́̍̇̈͟͢͏̨͘͞͏̪̘̥̬̥̟̹ͅs̷̷̴̿ͯ͐ͩͯͯ̓̚͡҉͝҉̢̞̜̳̘̳̟̙̠ŗ̵͐͒̓́̒ͯ̑ͤ̀҉̡̝̭̙̩͇̫̦̤̀̀̕a̵̵̽ͨ͊ͥ̋̉ͭ̋҉̧̢̫̞̹̞̹̱̠̪̀̀͘ȩ̸̸̧̨͖̤̲̹͚̰̘̙̂̿̿̿ͥ̋͗̀͘͡͠l̸̸̨̾̈̇͛̓͛͂̽̀̕͟͠͏̵̡̩̝̠̤̭̺̟̙̌̃ͥ̌̽̏ͤͥ̕͟͠҉̸̲̟͉̲̖͎̦̺͞
What’s a “reverse genocide” supposed to be in the first place: resurrecting all the people who died in a genocide?
I don’t say this to diminish any real genocide, but to point out the danger in this phrasing.
Yes, I’m not a fan, either. For that reason and because it seems to be a grand perversion to argue that it’s genocide to fight back against the people trying to commit a genocide. If self defense becomes genocide at the point that the occupier gains the upper hand, it’s all meaningless. It would give carte blanche to any invading force that moved quickly enough and violently enough.
Maybe in other circumstances, where two indigenous neighbours try to wipe each other out? But that’s simply not the history of Palestine. Israel was created by forcibly dispossessing the previous inhabitants (who are still there or refugees elsewhere).
Maybe it would be genocide to decolonise (abolish) Palestine if Israel represented all Judaism or if more or less every Jew lived there. But neither of those is true, either. And as decolonising Palestine is not about removing Judaism but Zionist Israel, contrary to propaganda, I don’t see how genocide can apply. Again, except as a distortion of the meaning, as neither Zionism nor Israel are nations/ethnicities/religions.
Luckily the moral question is a lot more straightforward than the legal question.