Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[Phoenall]

Challenger et al,

Well, I'm not sure I agree with this...

Not surprising given the sources you use, talk about “twisting the facts and misleading people” let’s take this drivel apart bit by bit, shall we?

Supreme Arab Committee (SAC), which later came to be known as the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), under the presidency of the Mufti of Jerusalem (Hajj Amin al-Husseini).

“Supreme Arab committe”? No such thing (again). I’ll be generous and assume you meant to write “Supreme Muslim Council” but got over excited again. The Supreme Muslim Council never turned into anything but continues in existence to the present day despite being dissolved by Jordan in 1951, the Zionist resurrected it in 1967.

The Committee (SAC/AHC) decided that the Arab Strike and widespread violence which began on the 21 April 1936 should continue until Jewish immigration was suspended.

The Arab Higher Committee on the other hand was formed on 25th April 1936 to co-ordinate the various National Committees that sprang into existence as a result of the call for a General Strike on 19th April that year, so they couldn’t really have decided anything on the 21st April.

Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini was a former Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Army turned cleric.

Erm, Not quite. Hajj Amin al-Husseini served in the Ottoman Army until the Arab Revolt was declared and which as a Palestinian patriot he joined at the first opportunity (bit difficult for him as he was serving on the Black Sea coast at the time). For the rest of the war he fought FOR the Allies, so not really an “enemy”, neither did he “turn cleric”. At the end of the war he held several jobs including, for a short time, that of “Detective Agent” for the British administration!

He emerged as one of the key Arab leaders involved in promoting the 1920 Arab Riots --- inciting the Arab masses to murder Jews and encouraged the looting of Jewish homes and businesses.

No. wrong again. There is absolutely no credible (i.e. non-Zionist manufactured) evidence that he played a key role in the riots of April 1920. All he is known to have done was to make a pan-Arab inspired speech in favour of King Feisal as King of a united Syria and Palestine. He did however, help to organise anti-British demonstrations on 8th March 1920, all of which were orderly and passed peacefully. Neither the Palin nor the Haycroft commissions singled him out as inciting anything.

Hajj Amin al-Husseini used his influence as a radical religious cleric as a stepping stone to become the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Still not a cleric, radical or otherwise, at this point in time.

Amin al-Husseini was appointed as Grand Mufti when the original elections were discovered to have been “fixed” by the rival Nashashibi clan to keep the Husseinis from any powerful positions in government. The British installed him because he was pro-British and would act as a useful counter to Nashashibi hegemony.

More to follow.

OOOOOPS rat boy gets it wrong again



Arab Higher Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Challenger]

OOOOOPS rat boy gets it wrong again



Arab Higher Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and now we have an illiterate moron posting. Read my post dummy.

 

[Boston1]

Looks like your debating skills are faltering again. Is "read my post dummy" really the best you can do when someone only needs a sentence or two to show your post was pure nonsense ?

The subject, which you are desperate to avoid is clearly stated in the OP.

So "read my post dummy"

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

III Convention

• Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
• (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
• (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
• (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) that of carrying arms openly;
• (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
• (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
• (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
• C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
• Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
• Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

• Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote

• Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
• In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
• In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
• The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
• (a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
• (b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.

 

[Challenger]

In late September 1937, the AHC in collaboration with three of the region's key Arab leaders (King Abdul Aziz-ibn Saud, King Ghazi of Iraq and the Emir Abdullah of Transjordan) used the threat of continued violence if they did not get what they wanted politically. In part --- the conspiracy said:

“to call upon you to resolve for peace in order to save further shedding of blood. In doing this, we rely on the good intentions of our friend Great Britain, who has declared that she will do justice. You must be confident that we will continue our efforts to assist you.”

Not quite sure where to begin unravelling this distortion of the facts.

By October 1937 over 1000 Palestinians, 87 Jewish colonists and 37 British has been killed in the course of the uprising. The Palestinian populace had grown weary of further struggle, especially when the British threatened to introduce martial law, reinforcing their garrison to 20,000 troops 9against a total of 2000 Palestinian rebels (from all groups, both Muslim and Christian). The AHC started to look for a face saving way out and appealed to the neighbouring kingdoms for assistance they responded with an appeal to the AHC to call of the strike and rebellion, this appeal was reproduced on page 202 of the Peel commission report and included the text,

“...to call upon you to resolve for peace in order to save further shedding of blood. In doing this, we rely on the good intentions of our friend Great Britain, who has declared that she will do justice. You must be confident that we will continue our efforts to assist you.”

The only “conspiracy” was to end the fighting without humiliating the AHC

The rioting ceased shortly after the Conspiracy note was openly published. But not long after, the Hostile Arabs, overconfident in their ability to influence a frightened British Administration, shot and killed the District Commissioner of Galilee and his entire motorcade in Nazareth (late September 1937).

Again, misleading as RoccoR totally ignores the circumstances surrounding this event. Firstly the general economic collapse caused by the strike and fighting created mass unemployment amongst the Palestinian population, that coupled with Zionist land purchases and expulsions of Palestinian tenant farmers, meant that a quarter of Palestine’s rural population had been dispossessed and had gravitated to the cities. There they perceived the British favouring Jewish workers over them for scarce jobs and this caused further resentment. In May 1937 the hunger strike by 180 political prisoners inflamed emotions amongst the Muslim and Christian Palestinian population, but to cap it all off the spark that reignited the rebellion was the rumour that the Peel Commission was going to recommend partition; giving the Jewish immigrants the best farmland in Palestine and the British control over the “holy places”

When violence erupted again in July and August 1937 the Grand Mufti broadcast appeals for calm and restraint and condemned acts of terror, even those committed in retaliation for Jewish terrorist attacks. L.Y. Andrews, the District Commissioner for Galilee was a victim of one of these terrorist attacks, carried out by Palestinian extremists. The AHC and the Mufti issued a statement of condemnation for the murder but by then the British had got the excuse they were looking for and...

The British Civil Authority, within days, then made it publically known that they: "found it necessary to institute action against certain persons whose activities have been prejudicial to the maintenance of public security in Palestine and who must therefore be regarded as morally responsible for the campaign of terrorism and murder.”

Interesting use of the word “morally” in that statement.

The British Civil Authority then began taking strict countermeasures:..

Yes they did, this part is the only accurate bit in the post.

Also included in these actions however was that the British also expelled Palestinian civil government from most cities and towns leaving a power vacuum in Palestinian civil society. The Palestinians fought back nevertheless and seized towns and cities in an attempt to liberate the country. To suppress this attempt at self determination the British brought in Two Divisions of British troops, Squadrons of RAF fighters and bombers, the whole Palestine Police force, the Trans-Jordanian Frontier Force and 6000Jewish “auxilliries”. Heavily outnumbered and outgunned, their leadership in exile, dead, or in prison, the rebellion was crushed.

What is often called an Arab Revolt is just large scale criminal activity...

Most Respectfully,
R

This last is RoccoR’s personal interpretation of events as he would like to see them, so I won't comment other than to say he’s entitled to his opinions, even if they don’t marry up with the facts in the historical record.

Anyone interested in reading up about this historical event, and making up their own mind, there are plenty of good history books available and as I’m often accused of being a clandestine salesman for Amazon.com, PM me if you’re interested and I’ll give you a list.

 

[Boston1]

The fact is that Israel is well within its rights to employ the Geneva Conventions, segregate combatants from noncombatants within the Arab Muslim population and repatriate the hostiles.

You might want to actually read the Geneva Conventions or as you so eloquently put it, read my post dummy.

Problem solved.

 

[Phoenall]

OOOOOPS rat boy gets it wrong again



Arab Higher Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and now we have an illiterate moron posting. Read my post dummy.

I did rat boy and I cleared up your misconceptions, or where they outright lies because you didn't have an adult intelligent reply.

 

[Boston1]

OOOOOPS rat boy gets it wrong again



Arab Higher Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and now we have an illiterate moron posting. Read my post dummy.

I did rat boy and I cleared up your misconceptions, or where they outright lies because you didn't have an adult intelligent reply.

He appears to be having trouble following the topic.

Israel only need apply the Geneva Conventions to be within international law in a time of war.

Round up the hostiles and throw the bums out.

 

[montelatici]

Has difficulty understanding the Geneva Conventions and what the word "repatriation" means.

Muslims and Christians (non-Jews) in the territory ruled by Israel cannot, by definition, be "repatriated", they are already in their native land. Besides the only sovereign "Power" is Israel, so there is no other party to the conflict that could be considered an opposing "Power".

 

[Phoenall]

Has difficulty understanding the Geneva Conventions and what the word "repatriation" means.

Muslims and Christians (non-Jews) in the territory ruled by Israel cannot, by definition, be "repatriated", they are already in their native land. Besides the only sovereign "Power" is Israel, so there is no other party to the conflict that could be considered an opposing "Power".

And they first have to prove that they are residents, without any form of title they would fail. But they can be evicted to another nation that they have elected that will take them in. If none is found then they have no nation and have to exist on UNWRA handouts.

 

[Boston1]

Has difficulty understanding the Geneva Conventions and what the word "repatriation" means.

Muslims and Christians (non-Jews) in the territory ruled by Israel cannot, by definition, be "repatriated", they are already in their native land. Besides the only sovereign "Power" is Israel, so there is no other party to the conflict that could be considered an opposing "Power".

Repatriation seems to be a really hard concept for you.

What it doesn't mean is that Israel is responsible for maintaining a hostile force as anything but prisoners of war. Nor does it mean there is anything but the Geneva Conventions to define how those prisoners are treated

So why don't you go read the Conventions and actually gain an understanding of what the act of "repatriation" is and what it isn't.

 

[montelatici]

I have read the Geneva Conventions and have forgotten more about them than you will ever learn. You, on the other hand, have yet to understand what repatriation means.

 

[Boston1]

I have read the Geneva Conventions and have forgotten more about them than you will ever learn. You, on the other hand, have yet to understand what repatriation means.

Excellent, so why don't you tell us with references of course, just where it says Israel is not allowed to repatriate enemy combatants ?

Oh and here's a little ditty you might find interesting.

Quote

• A. ' Special Principles for Repatriation '
• The following shall be repatriated:
• 1. All prisoners of war suffering the following effective or functional disabilities as the result of organic injuries: loss of a limb, paralysis, articular or other disabilities, when the defect is at least the loss of a foot or a hand, or the equivalent of the loss of a foot or a hand.
• 2. All wounded or injured prisoners of war whose condition is such as to render them invalids whose cure within a year cannot be medically foreseen.
• 3. All sick prisoners whose condition is such as to render them invalids whose cure within a year cannot be medically foreseen.
• The following in particular belong to this category:
• (a) Progressive tuberculosis of any organ which, according to medical prognosis, cannot be cured or at least considerably improved by treatment in a neutral country;
• (b) Non-tubercular affections of the respiratory organs which are presumed to be incurable (in particular, strongly developed pulmonary emphysema, with or without bronchitis, bronchiectasis, serious asthma, gas poisoning, etc.):
• (c) Grave chronic affections of the circulatory organs (for example: valvular affections with a tendency to compensatory troubles, relatively gave affections of the myocardium, pericardium or the vessels, in particular, aneurism of the larger vessels which cannot be operated on, etc.);
• (d) Grave chronic affections of the digestive organs;
• (e) Grave chronic affections of the urinary and sexual organs, in particular, for example: any case of chronic nephritis, confirmed by symptoms, and especially when cardiac and vascular deterioration already exists; the same applies to chronic pyelitis and cystitis, etc.;
• (f) Grave chronic maladies of the central and peripheral nervous system; in particular grave neurasthenia and hysteria, any indisputable case of epilepsy, grave Basedow's disease, etc.;
• (g) Blindness of both eyes, or of one eye when the vision of the other is less than 1 in spite of the use of corrective glasses. Diminution of visual acuteness in cases where it is impossible to restore it by correction to an acuteness of 1/2 in at least one eye. The other ocular affections falling within the present category (glaucoma, iritis, choroiditis, etc.);
• (h) Total bilateral deafness, and total unilateral deafness in cases where the ear which is not completely deaf cannot hear ordinary speaking voice at a distance of one metre;
• (i) Any indisputable case of mental affection;
• (k) Grave cases of chronic poisoning by metals or other causes (lead poisoning, mercury poisoning, morphinism, cocainism, alcoholism, gas poisoning, etc.);
• (l) Chronic affections of the locomotive organs (arthritis deformans, gout, or rheumatism with impairment, which can be ascertained clinically), provided that they are serious;
• (m) Malignant growths, if they are not amenable to relatively mild operations without danger to the life of the person operated upon;
• (n) All cases of malaria with appreciable organic deterioration (serious chronic enlargement of the liver or spleen, cachexy, etc.);
• (o) Grave chronic cutaneous affections, when their nature does not constitute a medical reason for treatment in a neutral country;
• (p) Serious avitaminosis (beri-beri, pellagra, chronic scurvy).
• B. ' Special Principles for Accommodation in a Neutral Country. '
• Prisoners of war shall be accommodated in a neutral country if they suffer from the following affections:
• 1. All forms of tuberculosis of any organ, if, according to present medical knowledge, they can be cured or their condition considerably improved by methods applicable in a neutral country(altitude, treatment in sanatoria, etc.).
• 2. All forms necessitating treatment of affections of the respiratory, circulatory, digestive, genito-urinary, or nervous organs, of the organs of the senses, or of the locomotive or cutaneous functions, provided that such forms of affection do not belong to the categories necessitating direct repatriation, or that they are not acute maladies (properly so called) susceptible of complete cure. The affections referred to in this paragraph are such as admit, by the application of methods of treatment available in the neutral country, of really better chances of the patient's recovery than if he were treated in captivity.
• Special consideration should be given to nervous troubles, the effective or determining causes of which are the effects of the war or of captivity, such as psychasthenia of prisoners of war or other analogous cases.
• All duly established cases of this nature must be treated in neutral countries when their gravity or their consitutional character does not render them cases for direct repatriation.
• Cases of psychasthenia of prisoners of war who are not cured after three months' sojourn in a neutral country, or which after that period are not manifestly on the way to complete recovery, shall be repatriated.
• 3. All cases of wounds or injuries or their consequences which offer better prospects of cure in a neutral country than in captivity, provided that such cases are neither such as justify direct repatriation, nor insignificant cases.
• 4. All duly established cases of malaria which do not show organic deterioration clinically ascertainable (chronic enlargement of the liver or spleen, cachexy, etc.), if sojourn in a neutral country offers particularly favourable prospects of final cure.
• 5. All cases of poisoning (in particular by gas, metals, or alkaloids) for which the prospects of cure in a neutral country are especially favourable.
• The following are excluded from accommodation in a neutral country:
• 1. All cases of duly established mental affections.
• 2. All organic or functional nervous affections which are reputed to be incurable. (These two categories belong to those which entitle direct repatriation).
• 3. Grave chronic alcoholism.
• 4. All contagious affections during the period when they are transmissible (acute infectious diseases, primary and secondary (syphilis, trachoma, leprosy, etc.).
• III. General Observations
• The conditions stated above must, in a general way, be interpreted and applied in as broad a spirit as possible.
• This breadth of interpretation must especially be applied in neuropathic or psychopathic cases caused or aggravated by the effects of war or captivity (psychasthenia of prisoners of war), and in cases of tuberculosis in all degrees.
• It is obvious that camp doctors and mixed medical commissions may find themselves faced with many cases not mentioned amongst the examples given under Section II above, or with cases that cannot be assimilated to these examples. The above-mentioned examples are only given as typical examples; a similar list of surgical disabilities has not been drawn up because, apart from cases which are indisputable on account of their very nature (amputations), it is difficult to draw up a list of specified types; experience has shown that a list of such specified cases was not without inconvenience in practice.
• Cases not conforming exactly with the examples quoted shall be determined in the spirit of the guiding principles given above.

End Quote

In the end if a POW has a hangnail they qualify for repatriation. ;--)

I'll leave it up to you to explain to us, now that we know a little more about who qualifies to be repatriated, who else might qualify.

Or maybe you can explain to us just why any of your little friends don't qualify as POWs

III GC
Quote

• ARTICLE 4
• A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
• (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
• (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
• (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) that of carrying arms openly;
• (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
• (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
• (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8 [ Link ] , 10 [ Link ] , 15 [ Link ] , 30, fifth paragraph [ Link ] , 58 [ Link ] -67, 92 [ Link ] , 126 [ Link ] and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
• C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 [ Link ] of the present Convention.

End Quote

 

[montelatici]

Israel may certainly repatriate enemy combatants. You just don't know what repatriation means.

 

[Boston1]

Israel may certainly repatriate enemy combatants. You just don't know what repatriation means.

LOL so you still haven't figured it out yet eh.

Well when you find exactly what a countries responsibilities are towards repatriating combatants. I'm sure you'll let us know LOL

PS
I suspect you've never read the conventions and don't have a clue.

How about if I help you out a little

Art 118 III GC

Quote

• Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
• In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
• In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
• The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
• (a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
• (b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

So how does Article 117 read ? ;--)

Quote

No repatriated person may be employed on active military service.

End Quote

Our take away on this article is that the detaining power may on its own "establish and execute" a plan for repatriation. You are welcome to try and find a stipulation within the conventions concerning any limitations that "plan of repatriation" may entail.

Need another hint ;--)

So what if the detaining power refuses to allow the POW residence within its area of control.

IV GC Art 134 and a few bonus articles ;--) for your reading pleasure

Quote

• Art. 132. Each interned person shall be released by the Detaining Power as soon as the reasons which necessitated his internment no longer exist.
• The Parties to the conflict shall, moreover, endeavour during the course of hostilities, to conclude agreements for the release, the repatriation, the return to places of residence or the accommodation in a neutral country of certain classes of internees, in particular children, pregnant women and mothers with infants and young children, wounded and sick, and internees who have been detained for a long time.
• Art. 133. Internment shall cease as soon as possible after the close of hostilities.
• Internees in the territory of a Party to the conflict against whom penal proceedings are pending for offences not exclusively subject to disciplinary penalties, may be detained until the close of such proceedings and, if circumstances require, until the completion of the penalty. The same shall apply to internees who have been previously sentenced to a punishment depriving them of liberty.
• By agreement between the Detaining Power and the Powers concerned, committees may be set up after the close of hostilities, or of the occupation of territories, to search for dispersed internees.
• Art. 134. The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour, 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.
• Art. 135. The Detaining Power shall bear the expense of returning released internees to the places where they were residing when interned, or, if it took them into custody while they were in transit or on the high seas, the cost of completing their journey or of their return to their point of departure.
• Where a Detaining Power refuses permission to reside in its territory to a released internee who previously had his permanent domicile therein, such Detaining Power shall pay the cost of the said internee's repatriation. If, however, the internee elects to return to his country on his own responsibility or in obedience to the Government of the Power to which he owes allegiance, the Detaining Power need not pay the expenses of his journey beyond the point of his departure from its territory. The Detaining Power need not pay the cost of repatriation of an internee who was interned at his own request.
• If internees are transferred in accordance with Article 45, the transferring and receiving Powers shall agree on the portion of the above costs to be borne by each.
• The foregoing shall not prejudice such special agreements as may be concluded between Parties to the conflict concerning the exchange and repatriation of their nationals in enemy hands.

End Quote

Our take away here is that the detaining power has the right to refuse to allow a POW to remain within the area of control, and that the cost of repatriation to the point of debarkation is the responsibility of the detaining power.

So lets hear it Monty. How can a POW be repatriated to a place other than his last place of residence ? Where does the POW get repatriated too ?

 

[Shusha]

Israel may certainly repatriate enemy combatants. You just don't know what repatriation means.

Monte, out of curiosity, just what do YOU think "repatriation" means? Because I'm pretty sure you are actually mixing it up with something else, perhaps, "point of departure".

 

[Boston1]

He doesn't have a clue Shusha

Quote

repatriation a person's return, voluntary or otherwise, to the country of which he is a national.

Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

End Quote

Or how about another one

Quote

Takes place when a person who has been expatriated, regains his nationality

The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.


Law Dictionary: What is REPATRIATION? definition of REPATRIATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

End Quote

I could spend a while making note of all the stipulations concerning neutral third parties but Monty ole Been wouldn't comprehend those either.

The simple fact is the last country of nationality is Jordan and Israel need not make any special agreements with Jordan to repatriate the Hostile Arab muslims.

Israel is only required to deliver the POWs to the point of embarkation in good condition.

There is nothing within the conventions that requires Israel to determine a POWs final destination.

Also Israel is free to develop and execute its own plan of repatriation given that the belligerent parties don't have a framework agreement as stipulated in the above art cited.

IE
Monty doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and certainly can't form a rebuttal based on the articles because he's obviously unfamiliar with the Geneva Conventions.

He'll have trouble with the concept that the Arab Muslims of Israel were illegally stripped of their nationality by Jordan after having been Jordanian national since its inception in 1928. Or that as Jordanian citizens thats exactly where they should be repatriated to IF and ONLY IF thats how the Israeli repatriation plan reads, its entirely up to them. Israel can actually repatriate them to just about any debarkation point they chose.

He'll then blither on about Arab Muslim nationality in Israel. Which is a non issue since the vast majority of Arab Muslims refused Israeli citizenship and Israel doesn't recognize a state of Arab Muslims in Israel.

Also the conventions do not require there to be an agreement between combatant nations prior to repatriation. Israel also has the right to refuse repatriated persons within its area of control.

Which brings us back to Israel collecting up the hostile Arabs, declaring them POWs and throwing the bums out.

 

[Shusha]

The whole question hinges on the citizenship of the people you want to repatriate, though.

 

[Boston1]

The whole question hinges on the citizenship of the people you want to repatriate, though.

Actually not.

Israel is allowed to repatriate POWs even if there is no agreement for repatriation between the belligerent parties.

Nowhere do the conventions require Israel to determine a place of final destination or nationality.

It actually allows Israel to establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation

The GC do not stipulate the contents of that plan, nor do they stipulate that repatriation needs to be anything more than delivering POWs to the nearest point of debarkation from the area within its control in good condition.

Lets read it again

Quote

In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation

End Quote

Israel may act unilaterally to repatriate enemy combatants.

Israel may develop and execute a plan of repatriation unilaterally

Israel may refuse to allow repatriated POWs from remaining within its area of control

Nowhere does it say Israel is responsible for determining the final destination of POWs once they leave its area of control ;--) Quite the contrary, Israel is free to develop and execute a plan of repatriation which may or may not include any stipulations concerning country of origins.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel may certainly repatriate enemy combatants. You just don't know what repatriation means.

Removal without duress to another nation that will take in the person, normally that persons home nation but not exclusively so

 

[Boston1]

Not entirely accurate

Instances of forced repatriation are very well documented and have been found by human rights courts to be perfectly legal.

Lets read it again

Quote

Where a Detaining Power refuses permission to reside in its territory to a released internee who previously had his permanent domicile therein, such Detaining Power shall pay the cost of the said internee's repatriation. If, however, the internee elects to return to his country on his own responsibility or in obedience to the Government of the Power to which he owes allegiance, the Detaining Power need not pay the expenses of his journey beyond the point of his departure from its territory.
End Quote

A Israel is not required to offer residence to enemy combatants

B Israel may repatriate enemy combatants Whether they agree on where they are going or not.

III GC Art 7

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

The costs and circumstances of repatriation are ambiguous at best. Given that lacking any agreements between the belligerents Israel is allowed under the conventions to develop and execute a plan of repatriation as they see fit.

IE pack them up and throw them out the nearest exit.

The first step is indivudually determining each Arab Muslims status as either combatant ( legal or illegal ) or civilian ( Citizen or refugee ) After which those who qualify ( and their descendants ) "must be repatriated without delay"

In many cases of war or conflict certain odious persons finding themselves POWs would face forced repatriation. This was actually common in WWII

Quote

Soviet subjects who had volunteered for German Army Ostlegionen and/or Waffen SS units were forcibly repatriated. These included Russian Cossacks of the XVth SS Cossack Cavalry Corps with their relatives were transported from the Western occupation zones of Allied-occupied Austria to the Soviet occupation zones of Austria and Allied-occupied Germany. Among those handed over were White émigré-Russians who had never been Soviet citizens, but who had fought for Nazi Germany against the Soviets during the war, including General Andrei Shkuro and the Ataman of the Don Cossack host Pyotr Krasnov. This was done despite the official statement of the British Foreign Office policy after the Yalta Conference that only Soviet citizens, who had been such after 1 September 1939, were to be compelled to return to the Soviet Union or handed over to Soviet officials in other locations (see the Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II).

End Quote

The issue of forced repatriation was litigated and found to be legal and NOT A WAR CRIME

Quote

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called this operation "the last secret of World War II."[5] He contributed to a legal defence fund set up to help Nikolai Tolstoy, who was charged with libel in a 1989 case brought by Lord Aldington over war crimes allegations made by Tolstoy related to this operation. Tolstoy lost the case in the British courts; he avoided paying damages by declaring bankruptcy.[6]

End Quote

The case was additionally reviewed by the European court of human rights who determined the verdict valid but the penalty excessive

Quote

In July 1995, the European Court of Human Rights concluded unanimously that the British Government had violated Tolstoy's rights in respect of Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, although this referred strictly to the amount of the damages awarded against him and did not overturn the guilty verdict of his libel action. The Times commented in a leading article:

In its judgment yesterday in the case of Count Nikolai Tolstoy, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Britain in important respects, finding that the award of £1.5 million levelled against the Count by a jury in 1989 amounted to a violation of his freedom of expression. Parliament will find the implications of this decision difficult to ignore.

Tolstoy refused to pay anything in libel damages to Lord Aldington while the latter was alive. On 9 December 2000, two days after Aldington's death, Tolstoy paid £57,000 to Aldington's estate.[17]

End Quote