I do not envision what has happened. In hindsight, voluntary, then less than voluntary, then assisted evacuation (if and only where possible).
The entire northern Gaza has been issued evacuation notices in the past few days and weeks. Today was the notice for the last parts of Gaza city.
Whomever chooses to stay, risks themselves. In the early parts of the war, the IDF could afford to provide assisted evacuation, but now it's understaffed, and the hazard from going into buildings is far too great, so it's mostly voluntary self-evacuation now.
If IDF go into a building, that building's gone in that moment anyway.
Evacuation of civilians from a warzone, not only is it perfectly legal, but is mandated of any armed force that chooses to uphold IHL.
You can evacuate civilians from a war zone in principle. But generally a state of war is regarded as temporary. Are you envisioning their eventual return? Or their permanent displacement? I think this is where the situation changes.
Even if forced evacuation was enforced, which is not feasible, would not have been classified as ethnic cleansing.
Central to the definition of ethnic cleansing is intent of ethnic homogeneity. An evacuated area and completely depopulated is not ethnically homogenous. The primary objective of clearing the northern half of Gaza is to reduce the threat area and nullify Hamas's main military strategy which relies heavily on territorial control.
For all I care it can be a closed military zone like the Golan, population 0.
This is a point I have repeated many times already.
Where do you propose to move them to? Pack them even denser into the remains of Gaza? What are the consequences for the civilian population of measures such as these? One could argue that physical extermination of the population of Gaza also nullifies Hamas' main strategy. And it's not ethnic cleansing because the plan is to do it to all of them, not based on ethnicity. But these arguments ring hollow. You have a 7 figure population squeezed into a tiny area that's not allowed to act as an independent nation-state, but also not given the rights of Israeli citizens. The entire thing is essentially a giant ghetto, and the population is almost entirely of one ethnic and religious group. Now you're suggesting mass relocations of these people to nullify a strategy of territorial control that relies heavily on the sympathies of the population. This very much looks like ethnic cleansing. Again, the question stands, will they be allowed to return once the war ends?
I do not object. There is nothing to object about the concept of illegal annexation because it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as illegal annexation.
Like there is no such thing as an illegal car. A car can be not authorized for road driving (e.g. race car or car show model). It can be un-registered. Or lacking certain registrations or certifications. Or its owner being stripped of license. Or uninsured. Or impounded. But a car is not a concept which can be illegal.
Semantic horseshit. Annexation is an act. An action taken by an actor with agency. Actors are governed by laws. When their actions contradict the law, they are commonly referred to as illegal acts. Word games don't change that. There is such a thing as an illegal annexation.
The west is full of young people who grew up on the notion that any form of war is not only immoral but also illegal. This is not something that can be reasoned with. Nor can I find reason in attending a military-oriented forum to protest war as an illegal concept.
Other then your personal pet peeve to rant about I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. But since you want to open this can of worms, the UN Charter, which is binding international law as far as any member states are concerned, has something to say on the subject of legal and illegal wars. Not all wars are illegal. But many are. War is not an illegal concept but discussing the legality and illegality of specific wars and specific military actions is absolutely relevant to a military-oriented forum. I'd say that I'm not sure why you find this is displeasing, but I think I know.
Annexation. That's what the mechanism is called. The act of legally redefining a state's borders is called annexation.
You're playing word games again. One country can not simply legally redefine the borders of another country. Which country is Gaza a part of?
I don't know what you mean by this, annexation by its very definition is illegal, it literally means forcefully taking something, that's why we call Russian annexation of Crimea illegal, that's why Putin is trying so hard to get Ukraine to sign a legal document to transfer sovereignty from Ukraine to Russia for both Crimea and other provinces.
Curiously enough Russia has a better* legal argument for annexing Crimea then Israel would have for Gaza. Russia at least held a referendum. He's proposing emptying the region, and then simply declaring it annexed.
*Better does not mean good, just... better.
