"Both the definition and charge of ethnic cleansing is often disputed, with some researchers including and others excluding coercive assimilation or mass killings as a means of depopulating an area of a particular group, or calling it a euphemism for genocide or cultural genocide."
That's not what anyone said. I said that moving people is not genocide. Killing people is genocide. And sometimes one happens (like when all muslim states in the entire world moved out the jews into Israel) and that's not a genocide, and sometimes the other happens (when the nazis killed the jews) and that IS genocide.
Trying to put an equivalence between those two things is idiotic. And if you DO that, then the arab world perpetrated a massive "genocide" in 1948, much bigger than what the Nazis did. See how crazy that is? Obviously that's not what happened!
-cide is a latin suffix that quite simply means "kill". Trying to call ethnic cleansing genocide is like calling divorce mariticide or moving away from home patricide.
The correct latin term would be something like "expulsio gentium".
Raphael Lemkin, the guy who first coined the term "genocide", considered "cultural genocide" (the killing of a culture if you will), a central component of genocide.
Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but people generally resist being ethnic cleansed, and so the perpetrators have to kill a lot of them.
Historically, forced mass migrations are usually both a mechanism and an ideological cover for genocide. People like you are an integral part of these genocides by legitimizing their actions with statements like "moving people is not genocide".
[David Attenborough voice] Here, we have one of such in the wild, benignly justifying genocide, just like the German national socialists moved millions of their victims to the concentration camps where they'd eventually be exterminated.
Watching Israelis and their supporters denounce the Holocaust as the worst tragedy in human history, while perpetrating theirs, in full view of everyone would be funny if it wasn't sad and heartbreaking.
Please don't comment like this on HN. We all know it's an awful situation. It needs to be discussed with sincerity, even if we find other people's opinions about it to be abhorrent. It's unbecoming to use tropes like this to sneer at other people's positions.
You can make a good argument that a state forcefully resettling ethnicities is a form of genocide (the Nazis did that, too, e.g. with german speaking northern Italian minorities).
But comparing that with the holocaust is just disrespectful hyperbole.
Holocaust had 6M jewish victims[1] (depending how you count). Current confirmed gaza death count is -as yet- ~65K [2], with projected ~600K at risk by year's end [3][4][5]. The original population of gaza was ~2M [6] which sets the upper bound to the crisis. (If you look at it as a % of population, it's quite a large number already.)
Of course, one can argue that if the allies had been able to intervene sooner, the holocaust would have been less severe. Obviously we'd like to demonstrate some lessons learned here.
A huge part of the Holocaust was the forced relocation of Jewish people* to concentration camps, which would have been (rightly) remembered as an inexcusable horror even if the killings in said camps hadn't been as extensive and inhuman.
* and Roma, and Armenians, and others - but that's less salient here.
