Israel Has Thus Far Avoided Ethnic Cleansing − It Doesn't Help for Trump to Push the Idea

I have spent the past year and a half combating lies and half-truths concerning Israel’s war in Gaza. When critics of Israel have equated this war to genocide or ethnic cleansing, I have been quick to forcefully explain why those terms are not just wrong but also undermine the peace efforts of real Israelis and Palestinians. That I’ve so often spoken out against such hyperbole is why I now feel obligated to say something.

What President Donald Trump has suggested for Gaza is nothing short of the dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing: "the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups" (per Britannica). Suggesting that Palestinians will get a "good, fresh, beautiful piece of land" does not make this fact better or acceptable. Similar proposals were made early in the Zionist movement when some suggested Jews should just find somewhere else to go other than the place they considered home for millennia.

Longtime observers of the Israel-Palestine conflict know how it defies easy resolution or explanation, which is why ostensible quick fixes can be so tempting. This is the reason why the most extreme supporters of Palestinians call for the elimination of Israel, and the most extreme supporters of Israel resist calls for any eventual Palestinian state. However, “from the River to the Sea” (a phrase most Jews understand as pushing to liquidate Jews from all of Israel) is equally repugnant when uttered in support of either cause. Ethnic cleansing by any other name, or some such.

Whether one’s primary allegiance lies with Israelis or Palestinians − or neither or both − we owe it to both peoples to advocate for nuanced discussion of our complicated problems. We should be able to admit that President Trump has done things that further the goals of peace in the Levant. Normalizing relations among Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan was a boon for the region. Trump, too, can be credited with reviving the stalled ceasefire/hostage release negotiation which languished for many months under the Biden administration. To the extent that Trump is unpredictable, it is entirely possible there could be more surprise curve balls over the coming four years, including ones that advance peaceward progress. The suggestion that Gazans just leave, though, ain’t it.

I am grateful that negotiating peace is beyond my pay grade; I wouldn’t want to be responsible for the task. However, as a religious leader (especially one of the Jewish people), one of my central responsibilities is to be clear about my moral standards. And, to that end, the war between Israel and Hamas of the last year and a half does have intricate ethical ramifications; wholesale, permanent, forcible displacement of Gazans, on the other hand, does not. It is simply wrong. To those who say Trump may simply be engaging in his typical bluster − you are probably right. Still, we’d be abdicating our moral duty to sit idly by and take that chance without saying anything.

So yes, the conflict is horrendously complex. Our expectations of any resolution, though, should be that it provides for the self-determination of both Israelis and Palestinians, each of whom has a historic connection to the same piece of land. A resolution should reject any attempt to settle the dispute in a zero-sum fashion, in which we delude ourselves into thinking that one group of people can sustain a long-term victory at the expense of a complete loss by the other. A viable resolution must ensure each group has access to the fundamentals of life that are needed to flourish.

Any "resolution" that falls short of these aims will be unethical, short-lived, or both. As someone who cares for both Israelis and Palestinians and who loves Israel, I cannot ascribe my identity to any plan that fails either of those tests.