The idea of expelling Arabs to other countries was once linked to Meir Kahane and other far-right radicals, and thus considered anathema by most Israelis. Now, to the delight of right-wingers, the idea is gaining traction as a ‘moral’ solution to the war.
Outside of a UN tribunal, that’s a distinction without a difference.
One is killing people, another is moving them to different place. I feel there is difference.
Russia was moving Ukrainian children into Russia, that’s a component of genocide. German Jews were forced into ghettos, then into concentration camps. The ghettos didn’t “prevent” genocide, they facilitated it.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/whats-the-difference-between-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing
They both serve the purpose of erasing the identity of a people. The methods and means are common between the two: you destroy their homes, you force them to move, you starve them, you kill the ones who don’t comply, and you leave the weak and struggling to die. The distinction you’re making matters in a UN court, where Genocide has a legal definition and legal consequences, whereas Ethnic Cleansing does not. But that doesn’t make ethnic cleansing some preferable alternative to genocide.
If you told a civilian in Gaza “you’re not being genocided, you’re being ethnically cleansed!” Do you think that would change their understanding of the situation much?