Condoning Ethnic Cleansing?

The Pentagon’s Troubling Publication on Gaza

Dec 31, 2024

The publication of an article by Omer Dostri in the Army University Press has laid bare a deeply unsettling reality: the normalization of extremist proposals within official U.S. military outlets. Dostri’s piece, advocating for the reoccupation of Gaza and the forced displacement of its Palestinian population, is not only ethically abhorrent but also a blatant violation of international law. This proposal, thinly veiled as a “security strategy,” undermines the moral fabric of any institution that dares to platform it. The implications of such views being published by an entity associated with the U.S. Department of Defense cannot be overstated.

This analysis delves into the ramifications of Dostri’s proposals, situating them within a historical and legal framework while critiquing the Pentagon’s complicity in providing a stage for such ideas. By examining the broader context of this publication, it becomes evident that this is not an isolated incident but part of a disturbing trend toward normalizing oppressive ideologies.

A Call for Ethnic Cleansing Disguised as Security

Summary of Dostri’s Proposal

At the heart of Dostri’s article lies a chilling blueprint: Israel should forcibly reoccupy Gaza, dismantle its governance under Hamas, and establish so-called “security zones”—a euphemism for the mass displacement of Palestinians. The author goes further, proposing that the displaced population be “resettled” in other nations, framing this as a solution to Gaza’s perceived threats. This strategy, couched in the language of security, is little more than an endorsement of ethnic cleansing.

Historical Parallels

Dostri’s proposals bear striking resemblance to other instances of ethnic cleansing in recent history. The forced displacement of Bosniaks during the Yugoslav Wars and the violent expulsion of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar are two glaring examples. Both were universally condemned as crimes against humanity, with international tribunals prosecuting perpetrators. The parallels highlight the dangerous precedent that Dostri’s suggestions would set if left unchallenged.

International Law and Human Rights Violations

Under international law, forced displacement and the establishment of zones designed to permanently alter the demographic makeup of a region are clear violations. The Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit the forced transfer of civilians during conflicts. Moreover, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court identifies “deportation or forcible transfer” as a crime against humanity. Dostri’s proposals, if implemented, would violate these fundamental principles, exposing those who endorse or execute them to legal accountability.

The Ethical Failure of U.S. Military Institutions

Complicity Through Publication

The decision to publish Dostri’s article within a U.S. military outlet is a stark example of institutional complicity. While the piece includes a disclaimer stating that its views do not reflect those of the U.S. Army or Department of Defense, the platforming of such extremist content inevitably lends it a veneer of legitimacy. By amplifying these ideas, the Army University Press risks endorsing—or at least normalizing—proposals that directly contradict international norms and ethical standards.

The Pentagon’s Responsibility

This publication raises serious questions about oversight and accountability within military institutions. What review processes allowed such a controversial piece to see the light of day? The lack of scrutiny not only damages the credibility of the Pentagon but also emboldens those who advocate for violence and oppression under the guise of national security. The moral and strategic costs are immense, eroding trust in U.S. commitments to human rights and international law.

A History of Marginalization

Impact on Muslim and Arab Communities

Narratives like Dostri’s perpetuate the dehumanization of Palestinians, framing them as expendable obstacles to geopolitical ambitions. This dehumanization reverberates far beyond Gaza, contributing to the marginalization of Muslim and Arab communities worldwide. For Muslim American and Latino journalists like myself, the publication is a painful reminder of the pervasive bias and systemic inequities that shape public discourse.

Broader Implications for U.S. Policy

The endorsement or tacit acceptance of such extremist proposals undermines U.S. credibility on the global stage. How can the United States claim to champion democracy and human rights while providing a platform for ideas that contravene these very principles? Furthermore, such policies risk alienating key allies in the Arab and Muslim worlds, compromising diplomatic relationships and regional stability.

A Call to Accountability

Demanding Action from the Pentagon

The Pentagon must take immediate steps to address this breach of ethical and professional standards. This includes issuing a formal condemnation of the article, clarifying its stance, and implementing stricter review mechanisms to prevent the dissemination of extremist content in the future. Without such measures, the credibility and integrity of U.S. military institutions will remain in question.

The Role of Civil Society and Media

Civil society and media have a critical role to play in holding institutions accountable. Journalists, academics, and activists must amplify critiques of proposals like Dostri’s, ensuring that such ideas do not go unchallenged. By exposing and opposing these narratives, we can work to safeguard the principles of justice and human dignity.

Conclusion

The publication of Dostri’s article represents a profound moral and ethical failure, normalizing the abhorrent idea of ethnic cleansing under the guise of security. Such proposals not only violate international law but also erode the values of democracy and human rights that the United States claims to uphold. As a Muslim-American Latino journalist, I stand in unwavering opposition to these ideologies and call on all who value justice to do the same.

Rejecting proposals like these is not just a matter of policy; it is a reaffirmation of our shared humanity. It is incumbent upon us all to challenge oppressive narratives, hold institutions accountable, and advocate for solutions grounded in equality, dignity, and international law. Only then can we hope to move toward a future defined not by division and displacement, but by justice and peace.