Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[Phoenall]

Most native people that have been colonized are hostile to their colonizers. That is just a fact.

NOPE it isn't as some see it as a fresh start for them and their land. And you forget that the Jews were native to the area and that is was they who where colonised first. Read the Ottomans history of their failed attempts at colonising Palestine with arab muslims that failed 3 times in 2 years. How the arab muslims moved back to their nomadic lifestyle and left palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

I think you are unnecessarily confusing people with your non-standard description. I think I get it now. Let's see. You are three-quarters correct.

No, I am saying that Israel is the occupying power. Something your buddy denies. Maybe you can explain to your buddy that while combatants of the occupied territory may be held as POWs if not killed and captured, by definition, they can't be "repatriated" anywhere outside of their "patria" as we say in Latin.

(POINT of CLARIFICATION)

You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin (in most cases they are one and the same, but not always).

You cannot deport people from their home country (to which they are a lawful citizen). That would technically be a "banishment, (exile or expulsion)." While there was such a thing as "banishment" and "exiles" at the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, it is now considered the creation of a "Stateless Person."

The term "stateless person" means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under as a national operation of its law. Chapter 1, Article 1(1), The Convention related to the Status of Stateless Persons

(COMMENT)

Article 5 People are individual "protected persons" that are "definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State" --- but are being prosecuted under Article 68. Notice the similarity in the language used in Articles 5 and 68. Generally speaking, you cannot deport Article 5 People (and HoAP/Palestinian Belligerents) without a serious diplomatic effort. No other country is required to take them (hence a "stateless person"). They are normally prosecuted under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. For the purposes of the West Bank that would be the Israeli Law as of 1 August 1988; when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt).

Now there are certain conditions, under which the individual in question cannot be readily classified. In such cases, a special tribunal must be convened by the Occupation Power to make a determination. Until such time that a determination is made, they should be confined as a Prisoner of War (POW) (Article 3) with the same protections. In some cases, these special prisoners may be segregated from the General Population of other POWs.

Normally Jihadists and Fedayeen, engaged in hostile or belligerent activities intended to harm the Occupying Power, or non-combatants as set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I are treated as Article 5, under the provision of Article 68 (Penalties and Punishment) in connection with stipulations outlined in S/RES/1373 (2001) UNSC Resolution, all General Assembly resolutions on measures to eliminate international terrorism, including resolution 46/51 of 9 December 1991, and Security Council resolutions on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, as well as relevant resolutions of the General Assembly on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

Most HoAP that have followed the Solemn Oath sent to the UN in February 1948, and those that allegiance to the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) for Jihad, or follow the 2012 Policy articulated by HAMAS are unambiguous Article 5 People.

Most Respectfully,
R

You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin (in most cases they are one and the same, but not always).​

Does that mean that most people in the West Bank and Gaza would be deported back to what is now called Israel?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, MONTELATICI, et al,

Well, it is not really law. It was a conference in the existing law. It is not a document that is enforceable. It is merely an official statement that reflects a "common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference."

Neither are the previous Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

I'm not sure what MONTELATICI's purpose was in posting this lame conference, but it has no real application beyond what has been already elaborated through the misfeasance and malfeasance the UN Humanitarian and Human Rights --- and the international courts.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are? You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.

"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention

1. This Declaration reflects the common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on 17 December 2014, mindful of the recommendation by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 64/10 of 1 December 2009.

2. The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the statement of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.

4. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize the continued applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which all High Contracting Parties have undertaken to respect and to ensure respect for in all circumstances. As such, they call on the occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. They also remind the occupying Power of its obligation to administer the Occupied Palestinian Territory in a way which fully takes into account the needs of the civilian population while safeguarding its own security, and notably preserve its demographic characteristics.

5. The participating High Contracting Parties recall the primary obligation of the occupying Power to ensure adequate supplies of the population of the occupied territory and that whenever it is not in a position to do so, it is under the obligation to allow and facilitate relief schemes. In that case, they further recall that all High Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of humanitarian relief and shall guarantee its protection. In this regard, the participating High Contracting Parties reiterate their support to the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, within its particular role conferred upon it by the Geneva Conventions, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and of other impartial humanitarian organizations, to assess and alleviate the humanitarian situation in the field. Beyond, all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, should make all possible efforts to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for the population of the occupied territory.

6. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that all serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated and that all those responsible should be brought to justice.

7. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict, and as such also by non-State actors, including in the context of military operations and attacks directed against and emanating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory since the Conference of High Contracting Parties on 5 December 2001 and the resulting great suffering of the civilian population. They are particularly concerned about the number of victims among the civilian population in densely populated areas.

8. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They recall that, according to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, at least insofar as it deviates from the Green Line, and its associated regime, are contrary to international humanitarian law. They equally express their deep concern, from an international humanitarian law standpoint, about certain measures taken by the occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the closure of the Gaza Strip. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territory and of the expansion thereof and of related unlawful seizure of property as well as of the transfer of prisoners into the territory of the occupying Power.

9. With regard to the conduct of hostilities, the participating High Contracting Parties underscore that the following acts are, among others, prohibited by international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict, and as such also for non-State actors: (1) indiscriminate attacks of any kind, including attacks which are not directed at specific military objectives, and the employment of a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects do not meet the requirements of the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (2) disproportionate attacks of any kind, including excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure; (3) destruction of property, carried out inconsistently with the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (4) attacks against protected persons and objects, including medical buildings, material, transports, units and personnel, as well as humanitarian personnel and objects, unless and for such time as they have lost their protection against direct attack; (5) attacks against civilian objects, including schools, unless and for such time as they are military objectives; (6) the location of military objectives in the vicinity of civilians and civilian objects, when it would be avoidable and (7) the use of civilians as human shields.

10. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, and stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."

A/69/711-S/2015/1 of 9 January 2015

Did Palestine sign this document, because if they did they should be dragged before the Hague for their breaches of it before the ink was dry.

Read article 9 that sums it up very clearly, and was aimed directly at the palestinians

(COMMENT)

• It reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.

(1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives,

(2) the principle of proportionality, and

(3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects.
​

• It emphasize the continued applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

• It recall the primary obligation of the Occupying Power to ensure adequate supplies to the population of the occupied territory.

• It emphasize that all serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated.

• It expresses a deep concern about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict.

• It express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt); and the partition using a security barrier that goes beyond the Green Line.

• It recalls the prohibited acts in the international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict.

• It reiterate the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, and stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.​

It actually doesn't say anything new. Every item on the list is just as applicable to the reported discrepancies committed by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), as it might be to the Israelis.

1. There is no HoAP distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The attack non-combatants at will and openly stress that they have every right to do so.

2. There is no lack of supplies in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt). In fact there are so many supplies, satisfactory and acceptable in quality or quantity, that the construction of underground tunnels has begun.

3. There are routinely IDF/Ministry of Justice investigation performed on all accusation of "serious violations."

4. The concern for the Security Barrier is negated by the Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan which replace the Armistice Agreements that establish the Armistice Lines.
​

It should be noted that the HoAP have ignored the "implementation" of the Geneva Convention. They routinely re-open hostilities and use indiscriminate fire on civilian targets. They routinely target civilian buses, school children, the aging and infirm, --- kidnap and murder civilians. The HoAP routine use the density of their civilian population to establish firing and launch positions. The absolutely refuse to Locate HoAP Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas and refuse to Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives; instead using those position to shield legitimate targets and use casualties incurred in counter-fires and military combat advances as media events. All the IDF operations engaged and suppressed with such force as was necessary to silence HoAP operations and achieve the destruction of concrete military target to achieve the advantage.

Most Respectfully,
R

I liked your post until you got to Israel's propaganda talking points on the end.

It is not Israeli talking points it is the UN's talking points made simple for idiots like you to understand. Seems that we will have to employ some 7 year old to explain things for you as 10 year olds are out of your comfort zone

You are mistaken. The UN part was the part I said I liked.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm, interesting.

stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."

1. There is no HoAP distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The attack non-combatants at will and openly stress that they have every right to do so.

2. There is no lack of supplies in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt). In fact there are so many supplies, satisfactory and acceptable in quality or quantity, that the construction of underground tunnels has begun.

3. There are routinely IDF/Ministry of Justice investigation performed on all accusation of "serious violations."

4. The concern for the Security Barrier is negated by the Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan which replace the Armistice Agreements that establish the Armistice Lines.​

R

I liked your post until you got to Israel's propaganda talking points on the end.

(QUESTIONS)

• Are you suggesting that the 2015 Convention Statement had no applicability to the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)?

• Are you saying that the HoAP has a policy of a "peaceful solution" in resolving the conflict? --- That the HoAP has some special authority to attack Israeli civilian targets?

• Are you suggesting that the HoAP never intentionally loose indiscriminate fires or directly attack civilians?

• Are you suggesting that the HoAP have investigated and released reports on Geneva Convention Violations they are accused of?

• Are you suggestion that the IDF/Ministry of Justice do not make the investigations?

• Are you suggesting that there is now or have ever been an Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians that established an Armistice Line?

• Are you suggesting that the Egyptian and Jordanian Armistice Agreements are wrong when they indicate that the Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement (as in Peace Treaty) between the Parties is achieved?

• Are you suggesting that the Palestinians were a party to the conflict?
​

Exactly what is it you are saying that you disagree with?????

I'm confused!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are the HoAP? Are those the people who are opposed to the occupation and colonization of their country?

No they are the arab muslim illegal immigrants that have brainwashed you into believing that it is their country even though they have no legal rights to it.

Read the surrender terms after the Ottoman empire was trounced in 1917, and what the Ottoman,s had to hand over to the victors as war booty and reparations

I have. You have been misinformed.

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

I think you are unnecessarily confusing people with your non-standard description. I think I get it now. Let's see. You are three-quarters correct.

No, I am saying that Israel is the occupying power. Something your buddy denies. Maybe you can explain to your buddy that while combatants of the occupied territory may be held as POWs if not killed and captured, by definition, they can't be "repatriated" anywhere outside of their "patria" as we say in Latin.

(POINT of CLARIFICATION)

You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin (in most cases they are one and the same, but not always).

You cannot deport people from their home country (to which they are a lawful citizen). That would technically be a "banishment, (exile or expulsion)." While there was such a thing as "banishment" and "exiles" at the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, it is now considered the creation of a "Stateless Person."

The term "stateless person" means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under as a national operation of its law. Chapter 1, Article 1(1), The Convention related to the Status of Stateless Persons

(COMMENT)

Article 5 People are individual "protected persons" that are "definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State" --- but are being prosecuted under Article 68. Notice the similarity in the language used in Articles 5 and 68. Generally speaking, you cannot deport Article 5 People (and HoAP/Palestinian Belligerents) without a serious diplomatic effort. No other country is required to take them (hence a "stateless person"). They are normally prosecuted under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. For the purposes of the West Bank that would be the Israeli Law as of 1 August 1988; when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt).

Now there are certain conditions, under which the individual in question cannot be readily classified. In such cases, a special tribunal must be convened by the Occupation Power to make a determination. Until such time that a determination is made, they should be confined as a Prisoner of War (POW) (Article 3) with the same protections. In some cases, these special prisoners may be segregated from the General Population of other POWs.

Normally Jihadists and Fedayeen, engaged in hostile or belligerent activities intended to harm the Occupying Power, or non-combatants as set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I are treated as Article 5, under the provision of Article 68 (Penalties and Punishment) in connection with stipulations outlined in S/RES/1373 (2001) UNSC Resolution, all General Assembly resolutions on measures to eliminate international terrorism, including resolution 46/51 of 9 December 1991, and Security Council resolutions on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, as well as relevant resolutions of the General Assembly on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

Most HoAP that have followed the Solemn Oath sent to the UN in February 1948, and those that allegiance to the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) for Jihad, or follow the 2012 Policy articulated by HAMAS are unambiguous Article 5 People.

Most Respectfully,
R

You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin (in most cases they are one and the same, but not always).​

Does that mean that most people in the West Bank and Gaza would be deported back to what is now called Israel?

No. To Jordan, Syria and Egypt.

 

[Boston1]

Subject kids.

Are the Arab nations still at war or conflict with Israel ?

Is Israel involved in an internal war ?

Does or doesn't that result in the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions

If so who qualifies as a protected person and what actions might forfeit that protected person status.

In the end IMHO Israel is at war and it does have the right and the obligation to distinguish and segregate combatants from non combatants. And treat them accordingly

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come now.

Who are the HoAP? Are those the people who are opposed to the occupation and colonization of their country?

(COMMENT)

These are the Arab-Palestinians that operate outside the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
SOURCE: UN CHARTER

The Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoAP) characteristically conduct activities that do not conform within the such guidelines as outlined in the Geneva Convention; yet present themselves to be the ever perpetual whining victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

Repatriation of a POW (or anyone else for that matter) is the process of returning a person (protected or not) to their place of origin or citizenship.

But its not deportation if they have forfeited their protected persons status. Its repatriation of a POW. Which does not require Israel to determine or even negotiate where their final destination might be.

(COMMENT)

Repatriation by definition, cannot create a "stateless person" and cannot deport the person from their home. In fact, while it is normal that POWs are usually prisoners from a foreign power, that is not the case 100% of the time. In any event, it is questionable that you can use "repatriation" as a tool; since it is under international law that you cannot force "repatriation" (alla ICRC) in all cases.

You cannot forcibly repatriate a POW to a country or territory for which the POW is not native and does not hold citizenship.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are just being foolish.

You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin (in most cases they are one and the same, but not always).​

​

Does that mean that most people in the West Bank and Gaza would be deported back to what is now called Israel?

(COMMENT)

A "protected person" in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is in their country. If they were deported, they would be sent to bed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

I think you are unnecessarily confusing people with your non-standard description. I think I get it now. Let's see. You are three-quarters correct.

No, I am saying that Israel is the occupying power. Something your buddy denies. Maybe you can explain to your buddy that while combatants of the occupied territory may be held as POWs if not killed and captured, by definition, they can't be "repatriated" anywhere outside of their "patria" as we say in Latin.

(POINT of CLARIFICATION)

You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin (in most cases they are one and the same, but not always).

You cannot deport people from their home country (to which they are a lawful citizen). That would technically be a "banishment, (exile or expulsion)." While there was such a thing as "banishment" and "exiles" at the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, it is now considered the creation of a "Stateless Person."

The term "stateless person" means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under as a national operation of its law. Chapter 1, Article 1(1), The Convention related to the Status of Stateless Persons

(COMMENT)

Article 5 People are individual "protected persons" that are "definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State" --- but are being prosecuted under Article 68. Notice the similarity in the language used in Articles 5 and 68. Generally speaking, you cannot deport Article 5 People (and HoAP/Palestinian Belligerents) without a serious diplomatic effort. No other country is required to take them (hence a "stateless person"). They are normally prosecuted under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. For the purposes of the West Bank that would be the Israeli Law as of 1 August 1988; when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt).

Now there are certain conditions, under which the individual in question cannot be readily classified. In such cases, a special tribunal must be convened by the Occupation Power to make a determination. Until such time that a determination is made, they should be confined as a Prisoner of War (POW) (Article 3) with the same protections. In some cases, these special prisoners may be segregated from the General Population of other POWs.

Normally Jihadists and Fedayeen, engaged in hostile or belligerent activities intended to harm the Occupying Power, or non-combatants as set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I are treated as Article 5, under the provision of Article 68 (Penalties and Punishment) in connection with stipulations outlined in S/RES/1373 (2001) UNSC Resolution, all General Assembly resolutions on measures to eliminate international terrorism, including resolution 46/51 of 9 December 1991, and Security Council resolutions on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, as well as relevant resolutions of the General Assembly on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

Most HoAP that have followed the Solemn Oath sent to the UN in February 1948, and those that allegiance to the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) for Jihad, or follow the 2012 Policy articulated by HAMAS are unambiguous Article 5 People.

Most Respectfully,
R

You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin (in most cases they are one and the same, but not always).​

Does that mean that most people in the West Bank and Gaza would be deported back to what is now called Israel?

Only the Jews and Christian, the arab muslims would have to look at Egypt, Syria , Jordan and Iran

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, MONTELATICI, et al,

Well, it is not really law. It was a conference in the existing law. It is not a document that is enforceable. It is merely an official statement that reflects a "common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference."

Neither are the previous Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

I'm not sure what MONTELATICI's purpose was in posting this lame conference, but it has no real application beyond what has been already elaborated through the misfeasance and malfeasance the UN Humanitarian and Human Rights --- and the international courts.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are? You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.

"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention

1. This Declaration reflects the common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on 17 December 2014, mindful of the recommendation by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 64/10 of 1 December 2009.

2. The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the statement of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.

4. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize the continued applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which all High Contracting Parties have undertaken to respect and to ensure respect for in all circumstances. As such, they call on the occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. They also remind the occupying Power of its obligation to administer the Occupied Palestinian Territory in a way which fully takes into account the needs of the civilian population while safeguarding its own security, and notably preserve its demographic characteristics.

5. The participating High Contracting Parties recall the primary obligation of the occupying Power to ensure adequate supplies of the population of the occupied territory and that whenever it is not in a position to do so, it is under the obligation to allow and facilitate relief schemes. In that case, they further recall that all High Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of humanitarian relief and shall guarantee its protection. In this regard, the participating High Contracting Parties reiterate their support to the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, within its particular role conferred upon it by the Geneva Conventions, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and of other impartial humanitarian organizations, to assess and alleviate the humanitarian situation in the field. Beyond, all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, should make all possible efforts to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for the population of the occupied territory.

6. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that all serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated and that all those responsible should be brought to justice.

7. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict, and as such also by non-State actors, including in the context of military operations and attacks directed against and emanating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory since the Conference of High Contracting Parties on 5 December 2001 and the resulting great suffering of the civilian population. They are particularly concerned about the number of victims among the civilian population in densely populated areas.

8. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They recall that, according to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, at least insofar as it deviates from the Green Line, and its associated regime, are contrary to international humanitarian law. They equally express their deep concern, from an international humanitarian law standpoint, about certain measures taken by the occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the closure of the Gaza Strip. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territory and of the expansion thereof and of related unlawful seizure of property as well as of the transfer of prisoners into the territory of the occupying Power.

9. With regard to the conduct of hostilities, the participating High Contracting Parties underscore that the following acts are, among others, prohibited by international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict, and as such also for non-State actors: (1) indiscriminate attacks of any kind, including attacks which are not directed at specific military objectives, and the employment of a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects do not meet the requirements of the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (2) disproportionate attacks of any kind, including excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure; (3) destruction of property, carried out inconsistently with the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (4) attacks against protected persons and objects, including medical buildings, material, transports, units and personnel, as well as humanitarian personnel and objects, unless and for such time as they have lost their protection against direct attack; (5) attacks against civilian objects, including schools, unless and for such time as they are military objectives; (6) the location of military objectives in the vicinity of civilians and civilian objects, when it would be avoidable and (7) the use of civilians as human shields.

10. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, and stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."

A/69/711-S/2015/1 of 9 January 2015

Did Palestine sign this document, because if they did they should be dragged before the Hague for their breaches of it before the ink was dry.

Read article 9 that sums it up very clearly, and was aimed directly at the palestinians

(COMMENT)

• It reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.

(1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives,

(2) the principle of proportionality, and

(3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects.
​

• It emphasize the continued applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

• It recall the primary obligation of the Occupying Power to ensure adequate supplies to the population of the occupied territory.

• It emphasize that all serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated.

• It expresses a deep concern about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict.

• It express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt); and the partition using a security barrier that goes beyond the Green Line.

• It recalls the prohibited acts in the international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict.

• It reiterate the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, and stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.​

It actually doesn't say anything new. Every item on the list is just as applicable to the reported discrepancies committed by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), as it might be to the Israelis.

1. There is no HoAP distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The attack non-combatants at will and openly stress that they have every right to do so.

2. There is no lack of supplies in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt). In fact there are so many supplies, satisfactory and acceptable in quality or quantity, that the construction of underground tunnels has begun.

3. There are routinely IDF/Ministry of Justice investigation performed on all accusation of "serious violations."

4. The concern for the Security Barrier is negated by the Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan which replace the Armistice Agreements that establish the Armistice Lines.
​

It should be noted that the HoAP have ignored the "implementation" of the Geneva Convention. They routinely re-open hostilities and use indiscriminate fire on civilian targets. They routinely target civilian buses, school children, the aging and infirm, --- kidnap and murder civilians. The HoAP routine use the density of their civilian population to establish firing and launch positions. The absolutely refuse to Locate HoAP Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas and refuse to Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives; instead using those position to shield legitimate targets and use casualties incurred in counter-fires and military combat advances as media events. All the IDF operations engaged and suppressed with such force as was necessary to silence HoAP operations and achieve the destruction of concrete military target to achieve the advantage.

Most Respectfully,
R

I liked your post until you got to Israel's propaganda talking points on the end.

It is not Israeli talking points it is the UN's talking points made simple for idiots like you to understand. Seems that we will have to employ some 7 year old to explain things for you as 10 year olds are out of your comfort zone

You are mistaken. The UN part was the part I said I liked.

Did you understand the UN parts, or did you include the words Jew, Zionist and Israel in the parts you believed they were missing ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm, interesting.

stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."

1. There is no HoAP distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The attack non-combatants at will and openly stress that they have every right to do so.

2. There is no lack of supplies in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt). In fact there are so many supplies, satisfactory and acceptable in quality or quantity, that the construction of underground tunnels has begun.

3. There are routinely IDF/Ministry of Justice investigation performed on all accusation of "serious violations."

4. The concern for the Security Barrier is negated by the Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan which replace the Armistice Agreements that establish the Armistice Lines.​

R

I liked your post until you got to Israel's propaganda talking points on the end.

(QUESTIONS)

• Are you suggesting that the 2015 Convention Statement had no applicability to the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)?

• Are you saying that the HoAP has a policy of a "peaceful solution" in resolving the conflict? --- That the HoAP has some special authority to attack Israeli civilian targets?

• Are you suggesting that the HoAP never intentionally loose indiscriminate fires or directly attack civilians?

• Are you suggesting that the HoAP have investigated and released reports on Geneva Convention Violations they are accused of?

• Are you suggestion that the IDF/Ministry of Justice do not make the investigations?

• Are you suggesting that there is now or have ever been an Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians that established an Armistice Line?

• Are you suggesting that the Egyptian and Jordanian Armistice Agreements are wrong when they indicate that the Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement (as in Peace Treaty) between the Parties is achieved?

• Are you suggesting that the Palestinians were a party to the conflict?
​

Exactly what is it you are saying that you disagree with?????

I'm confused!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are the HoAP? Are those the people who are opposed to the occupation and colonization of their country?

No they are the arab muslim illegal immigrants that have brainwashed you into believing that it is their country even though they have no legal rights to it.

Read the surrender terms after the Ottoman empire was trounced in 1917, and what the Ottoman,s had to hand over to the victors as war booty and reparations

I have. You have been misinformed.

How so when I have read the surrender terms and cant see any mention of Palestine being an arab muslim state. I do see the parts that say the defeated Ottomans and their allies are to surrender the lands in the M.E. Is that the part you have the problems with reading and understanding ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are just being foolish.

You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin (in most cases they are one and the same, but not always).​

​

Does that mean that most people in the West Bank and Gaza would be deported back to what is now called Israel?

(COMMENT)

A "protected person" in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is in their country. If they were deported, they would be sent to bed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without any warm milk or supper for being a very naughty boy or girl. Then made to stand in the corner wearing the dunces cap

 

[Boston1]

Boston1, et al,

Repatriation of a POW (or anyone else for that matter) is the process of returning a person (protected or not) to their place of origin or citizenship.

But its not deportation if they have forfeited their protected persons status. Its repatriation of a POW. Which does not require Israel to determine or even negotiate where their final destination might be.

(COMMENT)

Repatriation by definition, cannot create a "stateless person" and cannot deport the person from their home. In fact, while it is normal that POWs are usually prisoners from a foreign power, that is not the case 100% of the time. In any event, it is questionable that you can use "repatriation" as a tool; since it is under international law that you cannot force "repatriation" (alla ICRC) in all cases.

View attachment 68500​

You cannot forcibly repatriate a POW to a country or territory for which the POW is not native and does not hold citizenship.

Most Respectfully,
R

Its way to early to be rooting through the Geneva Conventions, however.

Repatriation isn't creating a stateless person if the person is already stateless.

Also forced repatriation refers to a POW being forced to return home. It does not refer to a nations right to expel a combatant force. If the POW has no home/nation then there can be no forced repatriation, particularly if the combatant refuses to abide by the CHL and forgo any further hostile actions if left within the host nation. Its a simple matter of a nations right to expel a hostile force.

The first thing that needs to be considered is that at no point have the Arab Muslims within Israel ever had their status determined on an individual basis. Combatants and non combatants, under the conventions must be segregated and may receive different treatment.

Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of Israel ( combatants and non combatants alike ) of their Jordanian citizenship. IMHO this does not make Israel responsible for them and they are now stateless persons.

As such there are no provisions within the Geneva Conventions which require a host nation to offer them ( enemy combatants and non combatants alike ) citizenship.

Nor do the conventions require a host nation to house in perpetuity enemy combatants. The host nation may repatriate POWs at their discretion.

In the end the term repatriation does mean to return to ones country of origin, however the Arab Muslims in Jordan illegally stripped the Arab Muslims in Israel of their citizenship. Making them ultimately responsible for not only starting the war in the first place but then of inventing the stateless persons condition which some are now trying to foist off on Israel.

I think we need to be very careful to recognize the artificial nature of the problem of stateless persons in Israel.

The only term used in reference to expelling enemy combatants taken prisoners in war in the Geneva Conventions is "repatriate".

In any case every country has the right to depatriate whoever they please.

 

[montelatici]

In any case every country has the right to depatriate whoever they please.

No, that would contravene Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it would be an arbitrary exile. Israel is a signatory.

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

There are a couple things here that don't ring true.

Its way to early to be rooting through the Geneva Conventions, however.

Repatriation isn't creating a stateless person if the person is already stateless.

Also forced repatriation refers to a POW being forced to return home. It does not refer to a nations right to expel a combatant force. If the POW has no home/nation then there can be no forced repatriation, particularly if the combatant refuses to abide by the CHL and forgo any further hostile actions if left within the host nation. Its a simple matter of a nations right to expel a hostile force.

The first thing that needs to be considered is that at no point have the Arab Muslims within Israel ever had their status determined on an individual basis. Combatants and non combatants, under the conventions must be segregated and may receive different treatment.

Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of Israel ( combatants and non combatants alike ) of their Jordanian citizenship. IMHO this does not make Israel responsible for them and they are now stateless persons.

As such there are no provisions within the Geneva Conventions which require a host nation to offer them ( enemy combatants and non combatants alike ) citizenship.

Nor do the conventions require a host nation to house in perpetuity enemy combatants. The host nation may repatriate POWs at their discretion.

In the end the term repatriation does mean to return to ones country of origin, however the Arab Muslims in Jordan illegally stripped the Arab Muslims in Israel of their citizenship. Making them ultimately responsible for not only starting the war in the first place but then of inventing the stateless persons condition which some are now trying to foist off on Israel.

I think we need to be very careful to recognize the artificial nature of the problem of stateless persons in Israel.

The only term used in reference to expelling enemy combatants taken prisoners in war in the Geneva Conventions is "repatriate".

In any case every country has the right to depatriate whoever they please.

(COMMENT)

You would have to give me an example case.

The Geneva Convention, in general, does not set the standard for handling "stateless people." Stateless People are created. You cannot make the disposition of stateless people until you understand how it is that they became "stateless." To my knowledge, I am completely unaware of any Arab Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip that are technically stateless.

It would have to be a very, very special case for Israel to "legally" (under any provision of law) compel or force action to deport, transfer, exile or otherwise expel any Arab-Palestinians from a place within the designated occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) to a place outside the oPt. They are citizens of the State of Palestine.

Article 28
2003 Amended Basic Law
No Palestinian may be deported from the homeland, prevented or prohibited from returning to or leaving it, deprived of his citizenship, or handed over to any foreign entity.
​

I'm still not sure what the objective is; but there are certain actions that cannot be taken and be considered lawful.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

The special case would be one of war.

And just because the Arab Muslims of Israel write up a law that states Israel is stuck with them doesn't make it so.

Israel is a sovereign nation and as such isn't subject to the demands of foreign nationals ( Jordanians stripped of their citizenship ) within their borders.

Simply because the Jordanians stripped the Arab Muslims of Israel of their Jordanian citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them.

Just because the doves in Israel offered them permanent resident status doesn't mean that status applies to enemy combatants.

I'm suggesting Israel vet each and every Arab Muslim in Israel for status, combatant or noncombatant. All combatants forfeit their protections as civilians or refugees and become POWs subject to the laws of war. The Geneva Conventions. Which take precedence over other forms of law during wartime.

POWs must be repatriated ( expelled ) at the earliest possible opportunity.

It falls under every countries right to defend itself as stated in the UN charter.

 

[Phoenall]

In any case every country has the right to depatriate whoever they please.

No, that would contravene Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it would be an arbitrary exile. Israel is a signatory.

So is Jordan and Egypt and they still expelled by force the Jews who lived there in 1949 and again in 1967

 

[Phoenall]

Boston1, et al,

There are a couple things here that don't ring true.

Its way to early to be rooting through the Geneva Conventions, however.

Repatriation isn't creating a stateless person if the person is already stateless.

Also forced repatriation refers to a POW being forced to return home. It does not refer to a nations right to expel a combatant force. If the POW has no home/nation then there can be no forced repatriation, particularly if the combatant refuses to abide by the CHL and forgo any further hostile actions if left within the host nation. Its a simple matter of a nations right to expel a hostile force.

The first thing that needs to be considered is that at no point have the Arab Muslims within Israel ever had their status determined on an individual basis. Combatants and non combatants, under the conventions must be segregated and may receive different treatment.

Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of Israel ( combatants and non combatants alike ) of their Jordanian citizenship. IMHO this does not make Israel responsible for them and they are now stateless persons.

As such there are no provisions within the Geneva Conventions which require a host nation to offer them ( enemy combatants and non combatants alike ) citizenship.

Nor do the conventions require a host nation to house in perpetuity enemy combatants. The host nation may repatriate POWs at their discretion.

In the end the term repatriation does mean to return to ones country of origin, however the Arab Muslims in Jordan illegally stripped the Arab Muslims in Israel of their citizenship. Making them ultimately responsible for not only starting the war in the first place but then of inventing the stateless persons condition which some are now trying to foist off on Israel.

I think we need to be very careful to recognize the artificial nature of the problem of stateless persons in Israel.

The only term used in reference to expelling enemy combatants taken prisoners in war in the Geneva Conventions is "repatriate".

In any case every country has the right to depatriate whoever they please.

(COMMENT)

You would have to give me an example case.

The Geneva Convention, in general, does not set the standard for handling "stateless people." Stateless People are created. You cannot make the disposition of stateless people until you understand how it is that they became "stateless." To my knowledge, I am completely unaware of any Arab Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip that are technically stateless.

It would have to be a very, very special case for Israel to "legally" (under any provision of law) compel or force action to deport, transfer, exile or otherwise expel any Arab-Palestinians from a place within the designated occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) to a place outside the oPt. They are citizens of the State of Palestine.

Article 28
2003 Amended Basic Law
No Palestinian may be deported from the homeland, prevented or prohibited from returning to or leaving it, deprived of his citizenship, or handed over to any foreign entity.
​

I'm still not sure what the objective is; but there are certain actions that cannot be taken and be considered lawful.

Most Respectfully,
R

So how do they stand if they declare themselves Palestinian while holding say Israeli citizenship. Could Israel not expel them from Israel and send them to gaza ( part of Palestine ) if they are found guilty of any criminal activity ?

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

I think I may have misunderstood.

I think of the Arab-Israeli and the Arab-Palestinian as totally separate entities. The first is Israeli and the second is Palestinian.

Let me say this at the outset. I do not practice law. I am presenting my limited understanding based on my experience in a previous professional.

The special case would be one of war.

And just because the Arab Muslims of Israel write up a law that states Israel is stuck with them doesn't make it so.

Israel is a sovereign nation and as such isn't subject to the demands of foreign nationals ( Jordanians stripped of their citizenship ) within their borders.

Simply because the Jordanians stripped the Arab Muslims of Israel of their Jordanian citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them.

Just because the doves in Israel offered them permanent resident status doesn't mean that status applies to enemy combatants.

I'm suggesting Israel vet each and every Arab Muslim in Israel for status, combatant or noncombatant. All combatants forfeit their protections as civilians or refugees and become POWs subject to the laws of war. The Geneva Conventions. Which take precedence over other forms of law during wartime.

POWs must be repatriated ( expelled ) at the earliest possible opportunity.

It falls under every countries right to defend itself as stated in the UN charter.

(REFERENCE)

PART TWO: LOSS OF NATIONALITY[​

Renunciation
of Nationality. 10.

• (a) An Israel national of full age, not being an inhabitant of Israel , may declare that he desires to renounce his Israel nationality; such renunciation is subject to the consent of the Minister of the Interior; the declarant's Israel nationality terminates on the day fixed by the Minister.
• (b) The Israel nationality of a minor, not being an inhabitant of Israel, terminates upon his parents' renouncing their Israel nationality; it does not terminate so long as one of his parents remains an Israel national.

Revocation of
Naturalisation. 11.

• (a) Where a person, having acquired Israeli nationality by naturalisation -
  • (1) has done so on the basis of false particulars; or
  • (2) has been abroad for seven consecutive years and has no effective connection with Israel, and has failed to prove that his effective connection with Israel was severed otherwise than by his own volition; or
  • (3) has committed an act of disloyalty towards the State of Israel, a District Court may, upon the application of the Minister of the Interior, revoke such person's naturalisation.
• (b) The Court may, upon such application, rule that the revocation shall apply also to such children of the naturalised person as acquired Israel nationality by virtue of his naturalisation and are inhabitants of a foreign country.
• (c) Israel nationality terminates on the day on which the judgment revoking naturalisation ceases to be appealable or on such later day as the Court may fix.

Saving of
Liability. 12.

Loss of Israel nationality does not relieve from a liability arising out of such nationality and created before its loss.
​

Israel: Revocation of Citizenship

(Sept. 8, 2008) On July 28, 2008, the Knesset (Israel's parliament) passed the Nationality Law (Amendment No. 9, 5768-2008). The amendment regulates the revocation of Israeli citizenship in cases specified by law. The main significance of the amendment is the transfer of the authority to revoke citizenship from the Minister of Interior to the Court of Administrative Matters upon the Minister's request.

A judicial determination is required for a revocation requested by the Minister at the termination of a three-year period from the acquisition of citizenship and in cases where the person subject to the request committed an act that constitutes a “breach of loyalty to the State of Israel.” Such a breach is defined as follows: (1) committing, assisting in, or enticing into the commitment of a terrorist act, including taking an active role in the activities of a terrorist organization, as defined by the Prohibition on Financing of Terrorism Law, 5765-2005; (2) committing an act that constitutes treason or aggravated espionage in accordance with the Penal Law, 5737-1977; or (3) acquiring citizenship or a right to permanent residence in a country or an area specified as Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip. Judicial approval for a revocation is not required within the first three years after acquisition of citizenship, if that acquisition was based on false information.

A court may decree a revocation of citizenship based on the commission of a “breach of loyalty to the State of Israel” only if the revocation will not result in the person becoming stateless; in the event that it does, the person will be granted a permit of residence in Israel. For the purpose of determination of statelessness, the Law recognizes a presumption that a person who permanently resides outside of Israel will not remain stateless. In proceedings outlined under the Law, the court may deviate from the laws of evidence and admit evidence in the presence of one party only. No hearings, however, will take place in the absence of the person whose citizenship revocation is requested unless (s)he was legally summonsed but did not appear in court. (Nationality Law (Amendment No. 9), 5768-2008 (July 28, 2008), the Knesset website, available at//www.knesset.gov.il/privatelaw/data/17/3/175_3_8.rtf; Nationality Law Bill (Amendment No. 9) (Authority for Revocation of Citizenship), 5768-2007 (Oct. 10, 2007), the Knesset website, available at//www.knesset.gov.il/Laws/Data/BillKnesset/175/175.pdf.)
​

(COMMENT)

If you are talking about Arab-Israelis, as opposed to Arab-Palestinians. then the law is different. Please note the bolded part.

In general, “breach of loyalty to the State of Israel,” and:

(1) committing, assisting in, or enticing into the commitment of a terrorist act, including taking an active role in the activities of a terrorist organization, as defined by the Prohibition on Financing of Terrorism Law, 5765-2005;

(2) committing an act that constitutes treason or aggravated espionage in accordance with the Penal Law, 5737-1977; or

(3) acquiring citizenship or a right to permanent residence in a country or an area specified as Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip.
​

In Israel, there is a vested interest. Once you've been a citizen for three years, "Judicial Approval is required. In any case, Israeli Law does not generally accept that a person should ever become "stateless."

Most Respectfully,
R