This (accepted) answer offers its own legal opinion on whether driving out Jews from various Arab countries was genocide, even though:

  • That's not part of the Q, and answers trying to provide similar context on the 'ethnic cleansing' rather than genocide angle were mod-deleted (even though 'ethnic cleansing' is actually part of the meme, unlike genocide).

  • The legal opinion provided by that answer is IMHO quite at variance with actual court decisions, which insofar didn't rule that deportations count as genocide in themselves. To quote/repeat myself in that regard from politics SE (sources are linked there):

three courts were happy to quote each other that ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocide:

As the ICTY has observed, while 'there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as "ethnic cleansing"' (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 562), yet '[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide.' ..."

— ECHR quoting the ICJ.

  • the answer says nothing about Palestinians/Arabs, even though that is also part of the question (and one can find equally easy Wikipedia articles about that, using the 'expulsion' word in the title. And if one reads a bit about the more suitable crime [against humanity] that could be charged in both cases--internal deportations count too, it doesn't have to be over an international border.

The long-standing definition of "deportation" as a crime against humanity included the crime of forced population transfer within a state's borders.

So a large part of that answer is pretty much a textbook case why (new) legal opinions shouldn't be advanced as such on this site, i.e. concluding from 'first principles' reading some conventions what is a genocide, when courts pretty much applied that standard rather differently. And the analysis/answer also misses some other things that could be applied, but despite a mod's suggesting I post my own answer, I think that even a better legal analysis would still be off-topic here, unlike on some other SE sites.

So, my question is: why has this answer not been severely pruned or deleted by a mod, even though it was edited by one?

1 Answer 1


As the OP of the accepted answer:

My intention was never to forward a new legal interpretation of anything. The original question asked for ethnic cleansing, which to the best of my knowledge has no formal legal definition. The nearest thing that does is genocide. So I wrote just a bit about that as a lead-in to answering the actual question about ethnic cleansing.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .