What Would Happen if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan?

[Coyote]

I think it would be a game-changer. What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan? What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?

How would that change or affect the conflict?

Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.

Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty. Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy? Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?

And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?

What does everyone think will happen?

Interesting thought. Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?

But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?

 

[Coyote]

Boston1, et al,

Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law." Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics. The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:

A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem
(Downloadable at this link.)​

"If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist." (Gamal Abdel Nasser)

"Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."

Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.

All within established international law of course.
Throw the bums out
And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.

(COMMENT)

It is about moral and ethical mind sets.

The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel. This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

 

[Phoenall]

I think it would be a game-changer. What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan? What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?

How would that change or affect the conflict?

Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.

Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty. Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy? Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?

And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?

What does everyone think will happen?

The muslims would immediately mobilise and attack Israel at its weakest point from the high ground. It would put Tel Aviv in range of even short range missiles and would see the destruction of Israel within 6 months. Jordan has already given away the west bank and would not want it back unless the Palestinians were not part of the deal.

 

[aris2chat]

I think it would be a game-changer. What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan? What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?

How would that change or affect the conflict?

Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.

Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty. Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy? Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?

And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?

What does everyone think will happen?

Interesting thought. Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?

But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?

That offer was also quickly taken back because of hamas actions in the Sinai. Hamas cannot be trusted and refuses to cooperate with the PA, Egypt or anyone else for the sake of peace.

 

[Boston1]

Boston1, et al,

Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law." Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics. The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:

A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem
(Downloadable at this link.)​

"If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist." (Gamal Abdel Nasser)

"Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."

Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.

All within established international law of course.
Throw the bums out
And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.

(COMMENT)

It is about moral and ethical mind sets.

The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel. This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

 

[Coyote]

Boston1, et al,

Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law." Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics. The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:

A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem
(Downloadable at this link.)​

"If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist." (Gamal Abdel Nasser)

"Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."

Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.

All within established international law of course.
Throw the bums out
And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.

(COMMENT)

It is about moral and ethical mind sets.

The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel. This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

 

[Boston1]

Boston1, et al,

Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law." Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics. The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:

A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem
(Downloadable at this link.)​

"If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist." (Gamal Abdel Nasser)

"Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."

Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.

All within established international law of course.
Throw the bums out
And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.

(COMMENT)

It is about moral and ethical mind sets.

The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel. This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

 

[Coyote]

Boston1, et al,

Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law." Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics. The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:

A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem
(Downloadable at this link.)​

"If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist." (Gamal Abdel Nasser)

"Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."

Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.

All within established international law of course.
Throw the bums out
And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.

(COMMENT)

It is about moral and ethical mind sets.

The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel. This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

 

[Boston1]

Boston1, et al,

Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law." Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics. The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:

A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem
(Downloadable at this link.)​

"If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist." (Gamal Abdel Nasser)

"Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."

Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
(COMMENT)

It is about moral and ethical mind sets.

The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel. This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

 

[Muhammed]

I think it would be a game-changer. What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan? What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?

How would that change or affect the conflict?

Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.

Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty. Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy? Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?

And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?

What does everyone think will happen?

They would mortar the hell out of Israel from Golan Heights.

 

[proudveteran06]

I think it would be a game-changer. What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan? What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?

How would that change or affect the conflict?

Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.

Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty. Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy? Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?

And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?

What does everyone think will happen?

Interesting thought. Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?

But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/...st/is-the-arab-peace-plan-really-about-peace/

This is why there will never be " peace"

 

[Coyote]

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

It would be ethnic cleansing.

 

[Boston1]

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

It would be ethnic cleansing.

Absolutely not. It would be the somewhat less than timely application of international law. IMHO this should have been done immediately after each flare up of Arab violence within the Israeli controlled mandate area.

Also, I think its important to note that the ONLY criteria for repatriation would be prisoner of war status, which is a determination made based on actions not ethnicity.

Unless you want to consider country of origin an ethnic instead of national designation. Which I'm not sure is accurate. I can be say, of Italian descent but a citizen of the US. In which case my country of origin is the US.

 

[Coyote]

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

It would be ethnic cleansing.

Absolutely not. It would be the somewhat less than timely application of international law. IMHO this should have been done immediately after each flare up of Arab violence within the Israeli controlled mandate area.

Also, I think its important to note that the ONLY criteria for repatriation would be prisoner of war status, which is a determination made based on actions not ethnicity.

Unless you want to consider country of origin an ethnic instead of national designation. Which I'm not sure is accurate. I can be say, of Italian descent but a citizen of the US. In which case my country of origin is the US.

The country of origin is whatever country currently controls the land they occupy.

 

[Boston1]

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

It would be ethnic cleansing.

Absolutely not. It would be the somewhat less than timely application of international law. IMHO this should have been done immediately after each flare up of Arab violence within the Israeli controlled mandate area.

Also, I think its important to note that the ONLY criteria for repatriation would be prisoner of war status, which is a determination made based on actions not ethnicity.

Unless you want to consider country of origin an ethnic instead of national designation. Which I'm not sure is accurate. I can be say, of Italian descent but a citizen of the US. In which case my country of origin is the US.

The country of origin is whatever country currently controls the land they occupy.

I don't think that position is defensible within international law. Simply because a combatant has been captured and detained within a given area does not make that given area their country of origin.

A prisoner of wars country of origin isn't even something that the country of the detaining state is required to determine. I'm pretty sure thats up to the Neutral third party.

The detaining state is only responsible for certain aspects of the care and wellbeing of the detainee and for proper judicial treatment.

Beyond that I dont' think they are responsible for much other than repatriation of prisoners of war within roughly one year after the cessation of hostilities. I'm pretty sure repatriation can include being turned over to a neutral third party. IE the IRC.

I see nothing which supports your view within the conventions.

 

[Coyote]

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

It would be ethnic cleansing.

Absolutely not. It would be the somewhat less than timely application of international law. IMHO this should have been done immediately after each flare up of Arab violence within the Israeli controlled mandate area.

Also, I think its important to note that the ONLY criteria for repatriation would be prisoner of war status, which is a determination made based on actions not ethnicity.

Unless you want to consider country of origin an ethnic instead of national designation. Which I'm not sure is accurate. I can be say, of Italian descent but a citizen of the US. In which case my country of origin is the US.

The country of origin is whatever country currently controls the land they occupy.

I don't think that position is defensible within international law. Simply because a combatant has been captured and detained within a given area does not make that given area their country of origin.

That is not the logic I'm using for their country of origin.

A prisoner of wars country of origin isn't even something that the country of the detaining state is required to determine. I'm pretty sure thats up to the Neutral third party.

The detaining state is only responsible for certain aspects of the care and wellbeing of the detainee and for proper judicial treatment.

Beyond that I dont' think they are responsible for much other than repatriation of prisoners of war within roughly one year after the cessation of hostilities. I'm pretty sure repatriation can include being turned over to a neutral third party. IE the IRC.

I see nothing which supports your view within the conventions.

If a person has resided for centuries in an area that is where he originates - not some foreign country.

 

[Boston1]

Whatever logic either of us is using is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the applicable legal statutes and instruments

The UN definition of a palestinian didn't include any requirement that they have resided for centuries; it only required that they have been present in the area for a two year period of time.

Regardless, Israel isn't required to maintain a enemy combatant on sovereign territory under the Geneva conventions. On the contrary Israel is obligated to either repatriate prisoners of war or turn them over to a neutral third party, with the IRC being the declared default party.

So regardless of what you might consider their country of origin to be, Israel is within its rights to detain and send them packing.

From what I can see within the conventions, Israel has every right to turn them over to the IRC at the border of its sovereign territory or territory that it controls sovereign or not; and is under no obligation to readmit foreign prisoners of war back into the country.

If you can point out articles within the conventions that support your view that'd be awesome but from what I can see, Israel could begin the repatriation process whenever it deems fit.

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, Coyote, et al,

Sorry for getting back so late. I just now saw this.

The return of POWs is fairly straight forward.

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

(COMMENT)

This is an Article 134 issue of 1949 Geneva Convention IV.

Absent other negotiated terms within the Cease-Fire Arrangements, Armistice or Treaty, the Geneva Convention says:

REPATRIATION AND RETURN TO THE LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE
ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]

The High Contracting Parties shall endeavor, upon the close of hostilities or occupation, to ensure the return of all internees to their last place of residence, or to facilitate their repatriation.
​

Outside this limited view, the terms and frame of reference are:

• Voluntary repatriation refers to two generalized aspects:

∆ The refugee goes home voluntarily.
∆ Restoration of citizenship for the homeland.
​

• Return is the generalized term for repatriations that have a special set of problems or considerations to be addressed. Right away, when you hear the phrase "Right of Return," You know there is a problem.

• Refoulement is a kind of "forced repatriation" or "territorial expulsion" that might place the returnee in a life threatening situation or where the returnee is re-incarcerated. Refoulement is absent any option for
consideration in sanctuary and security.

In many contemporary cases, the Repatriation has become violent. And very few members of the international community want to avoid establishing binding articles to enforcement. Repatriation has become the preferred solution because it is the most economic solution for member nations involved. It lifts the burden of reintegration and restoration of the refugee into society. In typical repatriation moves, a polarized population develops around refugee concentrations that bundle together for safety and security.

BUT, to my knowledge, there is no absolute "right of return."

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[Boston1]

What about a POW being turned over to the IRC ?

See third Geneva convention

Quote

• Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention.
• When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
• If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.
• Any neutral Power or any organization invited by the Power concerned or offering itself for these purposes, shall be required to act with a sense of responsibility towards the Party to the conflict on which persons protected by the present Convention depend, and shall be required to furnish sufficient assurances that it is in a position to undertake the appropriate functions and to discharge them impartially.
• No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special agreements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in its freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial part, of the territory of the said Power is occupied.
• Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the present Article.

 

[Coyote]

How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?