Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits ethnic cleansing:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Any coerced transfer of Palestinians to the Sinai or Jordan or wherever would be a prima facie violation of this statute.
I know the response from many would be, "war crimes aren't real," and as much as I disagree with that viewpoint, let's set it aside. The real significance here is that if the United States and Israel openly commit ethnic cleansing, that act would be the official abandonment of the postwar moral consensus that has ruled the institutions of the First World for almost 80 years. The secular religion of the United States defines Hitler as Satan and the Geneva Conventions as its commandments. To flout those commandments would be publicly discarding the standard that makes Hitler into Satan.
Yes, US proxies have violated the Geneva Conventions several times and gotten away with it if they were valuable enough. But the fallout of this decision would be far bigger than that. Popes have gotten away with all kinds of degeneracy and graft behind the scenes, but a Pope has never publicly broken the commandments against adultery or theft and told everyone to just get over it.
The natural response would be, "well if you can get away with it, how come Satan can't?" And the emperor has no clothes.
Palestinians are literally an ideology. Arabs are the ethnic group.
Agreed.
Except Palestinians are also Egyptians (like head of the PLO Yasser Arafat was). Egyptians are their own ethnic group that were culturally genocided through Islamic Arabic colonialism.
Well, if they're just Egyptians then it just so happens to be that they have a country that can take them that the US is in steady relations with...
... whom also didn't lose any foreign aid recently.
He's no more Egyptian than immigrants to Europe are European. He was born in Egypt to Palestinian parents. That is, if you consider Palestine a real place. It's more real than Ukraine, though that's not saying much.
Correct, but by that metric, Arafat most certainly isn't Egyptian.
Ethnicity = your culture/ideology.
Race = genetics.
Ethnicity is your culture, your very extended kin group, your culture, and your language. ideology is irrelevant.
Race is an abstract political concept crossing all known cultural, genetic, ethnic, religious, linguistic, geographic, and political boundaries. It also crosses multiple genetic boundaries like phenotype. The only known common factor in race is observable physical similarities, and is exclusively defined culturally.
Race, as it is normally used, has more in common with ideology than it does anything else. Even religion is more well defined.
Biological race could be used, but never is, because no one sorts themselves by phenotype.
"because golden retrievers can reproduce with poodles and they both like frisbee and tug-of-war, dog breed basically means nothing"
Quit acting like a leftist and muddying useful, descriptive words because they give you the ick.
Race is observable physically, it is observable statistically, it is observable genetically, it is observable in basically every meaningful measurable way through both individuals and populations.
But I suppose, if you'd prefer, we could just start referring to groups of humans as being different breeds. Unless you also think that dog breeding is a meaningless concept.
Race is less clear and objective than dog breeds, and dog breeds are explicitly attribute and behavior selected. Race isn't, because there wasn't any intentional selection pressure in the first place.
Even if you were to argue for the existence of breeds, American White, American Black, West African Black, English White, Welsh White would all be different breeds.