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.
I admire your optimism. They have a whole forest of fig leaves to use. "The Palestinian people have suffered tremendously because the actions of a terrorist few. In order to improve their lives, we will temporarily bring them over to housing constructed with US humanitarian assistance, in order that Gaza might be rebuilt and they might be able to resume their lives in their homeland in peace and prosperity."
Though as I said, it ain't happening.
So did Ataturk. So did their ally Aliyev. So did the post-WW2 governments in Eastern Europe, even before communists took over. Hitler isn't bad because he committed ethnic cleansing, or because he committed genocide, Hitler is bad because they say he's bad. They could equally well say that he's good for being a pioneer in combating climate change. They will simply not say that the US is bad, and that will take care of it. Just like Al Qaeda being bad for being terrorists does not extend to the US being bad for blowing up Nord Stream, or for that matter Al Qeada being bad when they fight US opponents.
Sometimes, this changes multiple times in a decade. Stalin was bad until June 22, 1941, then he was good Uncle Joe, and then he switched back to being bad when the Cold War started. Did Uncle Joe's character change? No. It was in their interests to say that he was bad, good and then bad again... so he was!
By the way, I'm not sure where that aggressive tone is coming from. I don't disagree with you that this is a bad thing, only about your optimism that great powers would face consequences. I have never, ever seen them face consequences for any of their acts, and I don't expect that to start because logic dictates that it should. They are above logic.
OK, if this isn't such a big deal to the international order as you suggest, then there should be a few examples of a First World country getting away with ethnic cleansing, right?
There are of course examples during wars and afterwards, but I'm guessing that you mean under normal circumstances. I submit that they didn't because they do not need to. It is not in their interests (or at least of that of the corrupt elites). And as far as I know, ethnic cleansing is very rare in peacetime anyway, even in non-First World countries.
Most first world countries committed their ethnic cleansings centuries ago. The reason why Europe was such a nice place to live, was because all the war, ethnic cleansings and forced assimilations had made it a mostly homogeneous place.
They can get away with wars of aggression. They can get away with bombing civilians and burning people alive. Why is it so difficult to believe that they could get away with ethnic cleansing?
Just any postwar example. Under any circumstances.
We are talking about the postwar period...
Occasionally your perspective and reasoning is so obtuse that I wonder if you're disingenuous. Same thing with Giz.
In this case my OP is super clear that the issue isn't the actual violation because the conventions have been ignored many times, but then you restated the same point as a rebuttal.
Technically, the Czech Republic was a first-world country, and it did expel its German population in a very brutal fashion that even Churchill criticized. Poles were expelled from the Baltic states and from fake Ukraine. But these are not a great examples because they came right after the war.
I know. If you ethnically cleanse your country so that it's a nice, stable, homogeneous place, then you don't need to do it in the postwar period. That is what I meant.
I did not find your counterargument to be terribly persuasive. You say that this would undermine the 'order' because other countries could point to the US and engage in the same thing. Leaving aside that they do not need the good example of the US to follow - e.g. Azerbaijan is ethnically cleansing and murdering Armenians.... we can look at other cases to see if countries successfully use US behavior to justify their own actions. Can Russia say that they get to blow up European infrastructure because the US does it? No, because Russher bad.
Also, your argument is that "if the most powerful country in the world can do X, then weaker countries can do the same". Weaker countries are already doing X. And it hardly follows from the fact that the most powerful country of the world being able to get away with X that weaker countries could also do that (though they are).
I wish you were right. But I'm afraid that you're not.