Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[Challenger]

• In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:

"Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."

Well again BiSon1 twists the facts to suit his narrative. UNSC 54 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 54; July 15, 1948 was made regarding the extension of a truce negotiated on 19th May 1948 which would come into force on 11th June and last 28 days, ending on 11th July 1948. Both sides had to be pressured into accepting the truce and both sides violated the terms of the truce. UNSC 53 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 53; July 7, 1948 was merely a request to extend the truce, which the Zionist side agreed to in princple as it was to their advantage, the Arab League prevaricated. There was no accusation or condemnation of agression by the U.N. towards the Arab league and both sides complied with UNSC 54. This is known as the second truce period of the war of 1948.

 

[Challenger]

So I prove that the scum who authored the Arab Leagues declaration of war against Israel both intended it as a declaration of war and a declaration of genocide.

Only on your planet.

 

[Boston1]

• In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:

"Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."

Well again BiSon1 twists the facts to suit his narrative. UNSC 54 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 54; July 15, 1948 was made regarding the extension of a truce negotiated on 19th May 1948 which would come into force on 11th June and last 28 days, ending on 11th July 1948. Both sides had to be pressured into accepting the truce and both sides violated the terms of the truce. UNSC 53 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 53; July 7, 1948 was merely a request to extend the truce, which the Zionist side agreed to in princple as it was to their advantage, the Arab League prevaricated. There was no accusation or condemnation of agression by the U.N. towards the Arab league and both sides complied with UNSC 54. This is known as the second truce period of the war of 1948.

Spiffy fits you much better as you really aren't a very challenging debater

What part of the UNs SCR directed towards the Arab League to stop the aggression eluded you ? Oh and while you got the SCR 54 correct you sorta forgot to include the actual text, replacing it with your own BS commentary ;--)

Quote

• In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:

"Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."[10]

End Quote

Quote

• In October 1949, the Arab League declared that negotiation with Israel by any Arab state would be in violation of Article 18 of the Arab League.[11]
• In April 1950, it called for severance of relations with any Arab state which engaged in relations or contacts with Israel and prohibited Member states from negotiating unilateral peace with Israel.[12]
• In March 1979, it suspended Egypt's membership in the League (retroactively) from the date of its signing a peace treaty with Israel.[13]

End Quote

You were saying ;--)

Oh and maybe you should read my last again because clearly you don't haven't offered a competent response yet.

Quote

What color is the sky in your little world Spiffy ?



I love it. So I prove that the scum who authored the Arab Leagues declaration of war against Israel both intended it as a declaration of war and a declaration of genocide.

And rather than concede that the quote was accurate, or that the declaration of war was also one of genocide, you argue about where the quote can be found. As its commonly reported to be from one source although its original source is the one I linked to.

And you want to think anyone is fooled by that rather pedestrian effort to obfuscate.

And just for fun lets review that quote again

Quote

Yet, the original document does in fact exist. It has eluded scholars for so long because they have been looking in the wrong place.

In his account of Israel's birth, Stone alluded to the possibility that the threat was made on the eve of the U.N. vote on partition, with the aim of averting this momentous decision, rather than before the pan-Arab invasion of Israel six months later.[7]Following this lead, David Barnett found a Jewish Agency memorandum, submitted on February 2, 1948, to the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked with the implementation of the partition resolution, and yet again to the U.N. secretary-general on March 29, 1948.

Describing the panoply of Arab threats of war and actual acts of violence aimed at aborting the partition resolution, the memorandum read:

(6) … The "practical and effective means" contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco."This war," he said, "will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."[8]

The Jewish Agency memorandum cites an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom as the quote's source. An examination of the original article readily confirms the quote's authenticity, laying to rest one of the longest running historiographical debates attending the 1948 war.

End Quote

And since this seems to be a problem for you Spiffy lets look at a few other sources

Quote

The source of the quote was traced by the Computer Scientist Brendan McKay to an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom, titled "A War of Extermination", which included the quote, with the added words "Personally, I hope the Jews do not force us into this war, because it would be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...".[1][2] The historian Efraim Karsh considers this quote a "Genocidal threat".[1]

End Quote

So who's to say it wasn't also reported in the source originally quoted ? No one is saying it was never reported or repeated, just that the original quote was as noted above ;--)

So if the US publication isn't good enough for you, and the Israeli note at the UN isn't good enough for you, then maybe the Arab league members themselves publication of it will satisfy you. Or is this another case of cognitive dissonance ?

Cheers
End Quote

 

[Boston1]

So having established that under the GC definition the Arab league declared war and committed acts of war against the fledgling Israeli state

And having established that as a war the GC apply.

Then it only remains to be enforced.

Israel need only apply the GC to the letter and repatriate any hostile Arab Muslims and their descendants who never qualified for refugee status in the first place.

 

[Phoenall]

it could be easily said the Jordanian invasion of land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland was a hostile invasion and many Judaic people living there were forced to flee what to them was a hostile invation.

Only if you were making things up again. In 1948 the Jordanian Arab Legion entered the core of the U.N. allocated "Arab Palestine" what became known as the West Bank. There were no Zionist settlers there at the time to "flee" from this "hostile" advance (invasion is spelled with an "s" not a "t" by the way; probably too much peyote addling your brain again.) There were only two kibbutzim anywhere along the Jordanian axis of advance and their populations had been evacuated long before as the Zionist high command considered them undefendable if any hostilities should ever break out. The kibbutzniks were living a comfortable and peaceful life in Sodom (of all places ). Jordan never invaded any territory allocated to the "Jewish State".

Looks like you are making things up again ;--)

The fact is that no area west of the Jordan within the mandated area was ever designated as Arab Muslim or Judaic. The entirety of the area was however left open for the Creation of a national Jewish homeland in both the Mandate and the Jordan memorandum.

In the end the Judaic people won their homeland the old fashioned way, through armed conflict. Including the disputed territories. It was only AFTER the Israeli victory that left the entirety of the mandated area west of the Jordan under Israeli control that the Arab led UN retroactively made acquisition of land through war illegal.

You might try actually reading them from time to time.

The FACT that the Arab League stated in its declaration of war against the fledgling state of Israel that it intended to "invade" is admission enough it knew the area was NOT intended as part of the Jordanian state, or any other Arab state.

The FACT that they ( the Jordanians ) attempted to annex the area, goes to show their indifference to any nonsense about the Arab Muslims on one side of the Jordan river 100' or so away from the Arab Muslims on the other, wanting their own state.

The simple reality that you are unable to face is that the area was only sparsely populated up until the second Arab colonial period in the early to mid 20th century when Judaic investment capitol led to an influx of Arab laborers in the area.

The Arab League invasion and subsequent occupation of 1948 left countless Arab colonists and combatants on land intended for a national Jewish homeland.

IMHO these colonists/combatants need to be vetted individually exactly as specified in the GC, and all who qualify for repatriation should be returned to their country of origin. Since all were Jordanian dating back to 1928 and then illegally stripped of their citizenship, its not real difficult to suggest who should take them. Although where they go is not Israel's problem.

The peaceful among them of course are welcome to stay.

A simple and judicious application of the GC would be 100% legal and affords the actions necessary to put an end to this nonsense once and for all.

Oh and Daffy, no homophobia at all, just pointing out that homosexual behavior is rampant throughout the Muslim world. As is racism, bigotry and prejudice of all types.

"The fact is that no area west of the Jordan within the mandated area was ever designated as Arab Muslim or Judaic."

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
November 29, 1947

"Part II. - Boundaries
A. THE ARAB STATE
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village. There it follows the western boundary line of the villages of 'Alma, Rihaniya and Teitaba, thence following the northern boundary line of Meirun village to join the Acre-Safad Sub-District boundary line. It follows this line to a point west of Es Sammu'i village and joins it again at the northernmost point of Farradiya. Thence it follows the sub-district boundary line to the Acre-Safad main road. From here it follows the western boundary of Kafr-I'nan village until it reaches the Tiberias-Acre Sub-District boundary line, passing to the west of the junction of the Acre-Safad and Lubiya-Kafr-I'nan roads. From the south-west corner of Kafr-I'nan village the boundary line follows the western boundary of the Tiberias Sub-District to a point close to the boundary line between the villages of Maghar and 'Eilabun, thence bulging out to the west to include as much of the eastern part of the plain of Battuf as is necessary for the reservoir proposed by the Jewish Agency for the irrigation of lands to the south and east.

The boundary rejoins the Tiberias Sub-District boundary at a point on the Nazareth-Tiberias road south-east of the built-up area of Tur'an; thence it runs southwards, at first following the sub-district boundary and then passing between the Kadoorie Agricultural School and Mount Tabor, to a point due south at the base of Mount Tabor. From here it runs due west, parallel to the horizontal grid line 230, to the north-east corner of the village lands of Tel Adashim. It then runs to the northwest corner of these lands, whence it turns south and west so as to include in the Arab State the sources of the Nazareth water supply in Yafa village. On reaching Ginneiger it follows the eastern, northern and western boundaries of the lands of this village to their south-west comer, whence it proceeds in a straight line to a point on the Haifa-Afula railway on the boundary between the villages of Sarid and El-Mujeidil. This is the point of intersection. The south-western boundary of the area of the Arab State in Galilee takes a line from this point, passing northwards along the eastern boundaries of Sarid and Gevat to the north-eastern corner of Nahalal, proceeding thence across the land of Kefar ha Horesh to a central point on the southern boundary of the village of 'Ilut, thence westwards along that village boundary to the eastern boundary of Beit Lahm, thence northwards and north-eastwards along its western boundary to the north-eastern corner of Waldheim and thence north-westwards across the village lands of Shafa 'Amr to the southeastern corner of Ramat Yohanan. From here it runs due north-north-east to a point on the Shafa 'Amr-Haifa road, west of its junction with the road of I'billin. From there it proceeds north-east to a point on the southern boundary of I'billin situated to the west of the I'billin-Birwa road. Thence along that boundary to its westernmost point, whence it turns to the north, follows across the village land of Tamra to the north-westernmost corner and along the western boundary of Julis until it reaches the Acre-Safad road. It then runs westwards along the southern side of the Safad-Acre road to the Galilee-Haifa District boundary, from which point it follows that boundary to the sea.

The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the Sub-Districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin. From that point it follows the Nablus-Jenin sub-District boundary westwards for a distance of about three kilometres and then turns north-westwards, passing to the east of the built-up areas of the villages of Jalbun and Faqqu'a, to the boundary of the Sub-Districts of Jenin and Beisan at a point northeast of Nuris. Thence it proceeds first northwestwards to a point due north of the built-up area of Zie'in and then westwards to the Afula-Jenin railway, thence north-westwards along the District boundary line to the point of intersection on the Hejaz railway. From here the boundary runs southwestwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh. Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El- Mansi. It follows this boundary to the southernmost point of the village of El-Buteimat. From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi 'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village. From here it runs along the railway line some distance to the east of it to a point just east of the Tulkarm railway station. Thence the boundary follows a line half-way between the railway and the Tulkarm-Qalqiliya-Jaljuliya and Ras El-Ein road to a point just east of Ras El-Ein station, whence it proceeds along the railway some distance to the east of it to the point on the railway line south of the junction of the Haifa-Lydda and Beit Nabala lines, whence it proceeds along the southern border of Lydda airport to its south-west corner, thence in a south-westerly direction to a point just west of the built-up area of Sarafand El 'Amar, whence it turns south, passing just to the west of the built-up area of Abu El-Fadil to the north-east corner of the lands of Beer Ya'aqov. (The boundary line should be so demarcated as to allow direct access from the Arab State to the airport.) Thence the boundary line follows the western and southern boundaries of Ramle village, to the north-east corner of El Na'ana village, thence in a straight line to the southernmost point of El Barriya, along the eastern boundary of that village and the southern boundary of 'Innaba village. Thence it turns north to follow the southern side of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road until El-Qubab, whence it follows the road to the boundary of Abu-Shusha. It runs along the eastern boundaries of Abu Shusha, Seidun, Hulda to the southernmost point of Hulda, thence westwards in a straight line to the north-eastern corner of Umm Kalkha, thence following the northern boundaries of Umm Kalkha, Qazaza and the northern and western boundaries of Mukhezin to the Gaza District boundary and thence runs across the village lands of El-Mismiya El-Kabira, and Yasur to the southern point of intersection, which is midway between the built-up areas of Yasur and Batani Sharqi.

From the southern point of intersection the boundary lines run north-westwards between the villages of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the sea at a point half way between Nabi Yunis and Minat El-Qila, and south-eastwards to a point west of Qastina, whence it turns in a south-westerly direction, passing to the east of the built-up areas of Es Sawafir Esh Sharqiya and 'Ibdis. From the south-east corner of 'Ibdis village it runs to a point southwest of the built-up area of Beit 'Affa, crossing the Hebron-El-Majdal road just to the west of the built-up area of 'Iraq Suweidan. Thence it proceeds southward along the western village boundary of El-Faluja to the Beersheba Sub-District boundary. It then runs across the tribal lands of 'Arab El-Jubarat to a point on the boundary between the Sub-Districts of Beersheba and Hebron north of Kh. Khuweilifa, whence it proceeds in a south-westerly direction to a point on the Beersheba-Gaza main road two kilometres to the north-west of the town. It then turns south-eastwards to reach Wadi Sab' at a point situated one kilometer to the west of it. From here it turns north-eastwards and proceeds along Wadi Sab' and along the Beersheba-Hebron road for a distance of one kilometer, whence it turns eastwards and runs in a straight line to Kh. Kuseifa to join the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary. It then follows the Beersheba-Hebron boundary eastwards to a point north of Ras Ez-Zuweira, only departing from it so as to cut across the base of the indentation between vertical grid lines 150 and 160.

About five kilometres north-east of Ras Ez-Zuweira it turns north, excluding from the Arab State a strip along the coast of the Dead Sea not more than seven kilometres in depth, as far as 'Ein Geddi, whence it turns due east to join the Transjordan frontier in the Dead Sea.

The northern boundary of the Arab section of the coastal plain runs from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis, passing between the built-up areas of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the point of intersection. From here it turns south-westwards, running across the lands of Batani Sharqi, along the eastern boundary of the lands of Beit Daras and across the lands of Julis, leaving the built-up areas of Batani Sharqi and Julis to the westwards, as far as the north-west corner of the lands of Beit-Tima. Thence it runs east of El-Jiya across the village lands of El-Barbara along the eastern boundaries of the villages of Beit Jirja, Deir Suneid and Dimra. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Beit Hanun the line runs south-west to a point south of the parallel grid line 100, then turns north-west for two kilometres, turning again in a southwesterly direction and continuing in an almost straight line to the north-west corner of the village lands of Kirbet Ikhza'a. From there it follows the boundary line of this village to its southernmost point. It then runs in a southerly direction along the vertical grid line 90 to its junction with the horizontal grid line 70. It then turns south-eastwards to Kh. El-Ruheiba and then proceeds in a southerly direction to a point known as El-Baha, beyond which it crosses the Beersheba-EI 'Auja main road to the west of Kh. El-Mushrifa. From there it joins Wadi El-Zaiyatin just to the west of El-Subeita. From there it turns to the north-east and then to the south-east following this Wadi and passes to the east of 'Abda to join Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh, Wadi 'Ajrim and Wadi Lassan to the point where Wadi Lassan crosses the Egyptian frontier.

The area of the Arab enclave of Jaffa consists of that part of the town-planning area of Jaffa which lies to the west of the Jewish quarters lying south of Tel-Aviv, to the west of the continuation of Herzl street up to its junction with the Jaffa-Jerusalem road, to the south-west of the section of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road lying south-east of that junction, to the west of Miqve Yisrael lands, to the northwest of Holon local council area, to the north of the line linking up the north-west corner of Holon with the northeast corner of Bat Yam local council area and to the north of Bat Yam local council area. The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State."

B. THE JEWISH STATE
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan. It includes the whole of the Huleh Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan Sub-District, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State. The Jewish section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza Sub-District and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba Sub-District, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza Sub-District, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State."

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

And when did this become law, as the last I heard it was just a recommendation for the starting point of the proposed carve up of Jewish Palestine. As soon as the arab muslims turned it down it became null and void, and so it reverted to the LoN treaties that entered into International law and gave the whole of Jewish Palestine to the Jews. The UN placed this in their charter as well hence giving the Jews twice the power to claim the land.

 

[Phoenall]

it could be easily said the Jordanian invasion of land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland was a hostile invasion and many Judaic people living there were forced to flee what to them was a hostile invation.

Only if you were making things up again. In 1948 the Jordanian Arab Legion entered the core of the U.N. allocated "Arab Palestine" what became known as the West Bank. There were no Zionist settlers there at the time to "flee" from this "hostile" advance (invasion is spelled with an "s" not a "t" by the way; probably too much peyote addling your brain again.) There were only two kibbutzim anywhere along the Jordanian axis of advance and their populations had been evacuated long before as the Zionist high command considered them undefendable if any hostilities should ever break out. The kibbutzniks were living a comfortable and peaceful life in Sodom (of all places ). Jordan never invaded any territory allocated to the "Jewish State".

Looks like you are making things up again ;--)

The fact is that no area west of the Jordan within the mandated area was ever designated as Arab Muslim or Judaic. The entirety of the area was however left open for the Creation of a national Jewish homeland in both the Mandate and the Jordan memorandum.

In the end the Judaic people won their homeland the old fashioned way, through armed conflict. Including the disputed territories. It was only AFTER the Israeli victory that left the entirety of the mandated area west of the Jordan under Israeli control that the Arab led UN retroactively made acquisition of land through war illegal.

You might try actually reading them from time to time.

The FACT that the Arab League stated in its declaration of war against the fledgling state of Israel that it intended to "invade" is admission enough it knew the area was NOT intended as part of the Jordanian state, or any other Arab state.

The FACT that they ( the Jordanians ) attempted to annex the area, goes to show their indifference to any nonsense about the Arab Muslims on one side of the Jordan river 100' or so away from the Arab Muslims on the other, wanting their own state.

The simple reality that you are unable to face is that the area was only sparsely populated up until the second Arab colonial period in the early to mid 20th century when Judaic investment capitol led to an influx of Arab laborers in the area.

The Arab League invasion and subsequent occupation of 1948 left countless Arab colonists and combatants on land intended for a national Jewish homeland.

IMHO these colonists/combatants need to be vetted individually exactly as specified in the GC, and all who qualify for repatriation should be returned to their country of origin. Since all were Jordanian dating back to 1928 and then illegally stripped of their citizenship, its not real difficult to suggest who should take them. Although where they go is not Israel's problem.

The peaceful among them of course are welcome to stay.

A simple and judicious application of the GC would be 100% legal and affords the actions necessary to put an end to this nonsense once and for all.

Oh and Daffy, no homophobia at all, just pointing out that homosexual behavior is rampant throughout the Muslim world. As is racism, bigotry and prejudice of all types.

Proof, if any were needed, Bison1 is a master at producing an unbelievable mass of bovine excrement. Thanks to Monty for saving me the effort.

In other words you don't have an adult intelligent reply that wont show you up to be a rabid brain washed islamomarxist propaganda shill

 

[Phoenall]

All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.

UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act.

The fact that Arab League declared war on March 15 and attacked the fledgling Israeli state put the entire issue into a whole new light.

A nations right to defend itself.

Israel won, several times and today. THERE IS NO PALESTINE.

Someone needs to read the Proclamation of independance....

And you need to read the LoN treaties that gave the lands to the Jews, not the arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

Yikes, and I'm the one who should be reading eh. Try the Declaration of Independence Spiffy and get back to us on that one ;--)

American colonists "declared" independence. Zionists "proclaimed" it, at least they did according to official Knesset records: Proclamation of Independence

And it was accepted by the UN with the required number of votes. So what is your point ?

 

[Phoenall]

All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.

UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act.

The fact that Arab League declared war on March 15 and attacked the fledgling Israeli state put the entire issue into a whole new light.

A nations right to defend itself.

Israel won, several times and today. THERE IS NO PALESTINE.

It is true that resolution 181 was stillborn.

However,

The Arab League did not declare war on Israel and there is no evidence that any Arab armies entered Israeli territory.

WRONG AGAIN as 181 was an either or resolution. it did not need two parties to agree on the outcome

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory. This included gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem. So who entered gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews

 

[P F Tinmore]

All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.

UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act.

The fact that Arab League declared war on March 15 and attacked the fledgling Israeli state put the entire issue into a whole new light.

A nations right to defend itself.

Israel won, several times and today. THERE IS NO PALESTINE.

It is true that resolution 181 was stillborn.

However,

The Arab League did not declare war on Israel and there is no evidence that any Arab armies entered Israeli territory.

WRONG AGAIN as 181 was an either or resolution. it did not need two parties to agree on the outcome

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory. This included gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem. So who entered gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory.​

Link to land given to a Jewish Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.

UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act.

The fact that Arab League declared war on March 15 and attacked the fledgling Israeli state put the entire issue into a whole new light.

A nations right to defend itself.

Israel won, several times and today. THERE IS NO PALESTINE.

It is true that resolution 181 was stillborn.

However,

The Arab League did not declare war on Israel and there is no evidence that any Arab armies entered Israeli territory.

WRONG AGAIN as 181 was an either or resolution. it did not need two parties to agree on the outcome

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory. This included gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem. So who entered gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory.​

Link to land given to a Jewish Palestine.

Here you go for the thousandth time, why don't you save it and then you wont keep asking for it



Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

 

[P F Tinmore]

All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.

UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act.

The fact that Arab League declared war on March 15 and attacked the fledgling Israeli state put the entire issue into a whole new light.

A nations right to defend itself.

Israel won, several times and today. THERE IS NO PALESTINE.

It is true that resolution 181 was stillborn.

However,

The Arab League did not declare war on Israel and there is no evidence that any Arab armies entered Israeli territory.

WRONG AGAIN as 181 was an either or resolution. it did not need two parties to agree on the outcome

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory. This included gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem. So who entered gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory.​

Link to land given to a Jewish Palestine.

Here you go for the thousandth time, why don't you save it and then you wont keep asking for it



Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

There is nothing in your post that answers my question. It doesn't mention giving that land to the Jews.

 

[Boston1]

All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.

UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act.

The fact that Arab League declared war on March 15 and attacked the fledgling Israeli state put the entire issue into a whole new light.

A nations right to defend itself.

Israel won, several times and today. THERE IS NO PALESTINE.

It is true that resolution 181 was stillborn.

However,

The Arab League did not declare war on Israel and there is no evidence that any Arab armies entered Israeli territory.

WRONG AGAIN as 181 was an either or resolution. it did not need two parties to agree on the outcome

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory. This included gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem. So who entered gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews

If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory.​

Link to land given to a Jewish Palestine.

Here you go for the thousandth time, why don't you save it and then you wont keep asking for it



Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

There is nothing in your post that answers my question. It doesn't mention giving that land to the Jews.

Actually there's nothing in YOUR post which respects the topic or moderation rules.

Lets try this again.

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]

What part of the UNs SCR directed towards the Arab League to stop the aggression eluded you ? Oh and while you got the SCR 54 correct you sorta forgot to include the actual text, replacing it with your own BS commentary ;--)

None. Primarily because it doesn'y exist and never happened. Just another piece of make belief you've invented to persue your "theory".

And you want to think anyone is fooled by that rather pedestrian effort to obfuscate.

Just stating facts, ma'am. The only one generating the BS is you twisting the facts to suit your own little theory. Not even the Zionist Israeli government agrees with you:

"The Israeli government view, laid out in legal memoranda issued by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is that the territories did not belong to any sovereign State at the time Israel captured them during the 1967 war. That is, Egypt did not claim the Gaza Strip, and Jordan may have claimed the West Bank, but Israel and the great majority of states did not recognize that claim; and Palestinians did not assert sovereignty to the territory at that time. In addition, UN resolutions 242 and 338, which call upon Israel to withdraw from occupied territory, did not say that other States claimed sovereignty at the time. Israel further argues that any Palestinian claims to sovereignty over the territories based upon the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 1947 were rendered invalid because the Palestinians and allied Arab states rejected the resolution and took up arms against it.

Accordingly, in the Israeli view, the Fourth Convention is inapplicable on its face, since under the second paragraph of Article 2 common to all four Conventions of 1949, the Conventions apply only to “occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party.” Formal recognition of the applicability of the Convention, Israel argued, implied a recognition of the sovereignty of the former administration."

- See more at: Crimes of War – Israel’s Views of the Application of IHL to the West Bank and Gaza Strip

So having established that under the GC definition the Arab league declared war and committed acts of war against the fledgling Israeli state

And having established that as a war the GC apply.

Not so much, if at all. But good effort. 3/10

 

[Boston1]

LOL

Those debating skills are failing you again. When cornered you write some long blithering bit of unsupported nonsense and then change the subject.

But congrats for finally noticing that the Israeli's don't want to employ the GC. They have some long convoluted reasoning which I don't happen to agree with.

The Israeli's need to employ the GC ASAP and rid themselves of every single Arab Muslim combatant AND their descendants immediately.

Its perfectly legal, and settles the issue sooner rather than later. You just don't have the courage to face the fact that the Israeli's could settle this in a flash if only they'd quit coddling the Arab Muslims in Israel.

 

[Challenger]

When cornered you write some long blithering bit of unsupported nonsense and then change the subject.

Seems you're completely losing your grip on reality; accusing me of doing what you do all the time on this board, still that's to be expected from a malignant narcissistic fantasist, like yourself.

A for me I'm happy to leave it up to the casual reader to determine for themselves who has been cornered.

 

[Challenger]

...They have some long convoluted reasoning which I don't happen to agree with.

They also have people highly qualified in international law, but hey, you clearly know best.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, if BDS calls for boycott until Israel abides by international law, why don't they just do it?

 

[Boston1]

When cornered you write some long blithering bit of unsupported nonsense and then change the subject.

Seems you're completely losing your grip on reality; accusing me of doing what you do all the time on this board, still that's to be expected from a malignant narcissistic fantasist, like yourself.

A for me I'm happy to leave it up to the casual reader to determine for themselves who has been cornered.

Yeah, while my favorite was when you tried to tell us that the Arab League hadn't declared war and when presented with the Arab League chairmans own words declaring it not only a war but a war of genocide against the Judaic people the best you could come up with was some lame and unfounded accusations about where the admission was published first. That one was a hoot.

But this latest nonsense you're now trying to run up the pole is that the UN never recognized or condemned the Arab Muslim aggression. Which they most certainly did in SCR-54



Quote

• In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:

"Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptancein principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."[10]

End Quote

Quote

• In October 1949, the Arab League declared that negotiation with Israel by any Arab state would be in violation of Article 18 of the Arab League.[11]
• In April 1950, it called for severance of relations with any Arab state which engaged in relations or contacts with Israel and prohibited Member states from negotiating unilateral peace with Israel.[12]
• In March 1979, it suspended Egypt's membership in the League (retroactively) from the date of its signing a peace treaty with Israel.[13]

End Quote

In the end all your obfuscating is just more hot air to avoid the topic which is that Israel should, and would be completely justified in simply employing the GC and running the Arab Muslim combatants out of Israel.

Maybe you should read the OP again so you can begin to grasp the reasoning ;--)

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]

Yeah, while my favorite was when you tried to tell us that the Arab League hadn't declared war and when presented with the Arab League chairmans own words declaring it not only a war but a war of genocide against the Judaic people the best you could come up with was some lame and unfounded accusations about where the admission was published first. That one was a hoot.

You were quoting verbatim Eli E. Hertz' blog/website The Arab League at War with Israel I merely demonstrated he was making things up and playing fast and loose with the facts, just like our "bovine" friend here.

I'll let readers make up their own minds, "Declaration of war" or "Declaration of an intervention in order to restore the peace and the rule of law"?

"10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:

(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;

(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.

(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.

(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.

(e) They are responsible in any … by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter." Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations - Wikisource, the free online library

....and this a direct announcement of, "a war of genocide against the Judaic (whoever they are supposed to be)people " or a bombastic warning of a worst case scenario if matters continue along their current course made at least 6 months before Zionist Israel declared it's "independance"

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.

"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world …

"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle … or the final one… whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine months…While en route to sign the truce, I was approached by some of my comrades in arms who told me: 'Shame on you! You are a man of the people, so how could you wish to end the war … How can we live without war?' This is because war gives the Bedouin a sense of happiness, bliss, and security that peace does not provide! …

"I warned the Jewish leaders I met in London to desist from their policy, telling them that the Arab was the mightiest of soldiers and the day he draws his weapon, he will not lay it down until firing the last bullet in the battle, and we will fire the last shot …"

He [Azzam] ended his conversation with me by saying: "I foresee the consequences of this bloody war. I see before me its horrible battles. I can picture its dead, injured, and victims … But my conscience is clear … For we are not attacking but defending ourselves, and we are not aggressors but defenders against an aggression! …" Azzam's Genocidal Threat

UNSCR 54 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 54; July 15, 1948 called on all fighting to stop, threatening U.N. intervention if it didn't. It came after the expiry of the first UN imposed truce. the Zionists accepted "in principle" but kept on fighting anyway (the first truce had allowed them to regroup, rearm and reorganise so any pause in hostilities worked in their favour) The Arabs, on the other hand, had not prepared for a war and had gambled on a swift early victory, and having used up most of their resources would only get weaker if the truce was extended. As events transpired both sides eventually accepted the second truce. There was no U.N. condemnation od any Arab agression in that resolution or any other at the time.