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.
OK, so they want to conquer all the lands between the Nile and the Euphrates, and they couldn't even keep the Sinai (even though they defeated Egypt in every military encounter)?
Sounds like "Russher is losing to Ukraine but it will soon be in Madrid if we don't sink all our wealth in waging war on it."
Its different to attack withdrawing waterless forces with aircraft in the sinai vs hold it with ground troops, especially when Egyptians were about to mount a full counter attack from the west bank of the suez. Israel couldn't project power through the Sinai so better give it up to secure peace on that border.
Can you understand the difference between the two military operations? Attacking versus holding and occupying? Or are you just trolling like usual.
The difference between attack and defense is clear to even someone of my limited abilities. I'm pointing out that Egypt was unable to reconquer the Sinai in 1973. And if you can't even hold the Sinai, and don't want to, the insane claims here about Jewish conspiracies don't make any sense.
So why did Israel give it up? Charity? Lol.
Obviously not. Realpolitik. They wanted peace with Egypt more than the Sinai.