Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

There may be a provision. These actions are usually an irrevocable process.

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 ?

(COMMENT)

It is not as easy as you might think; and it is not automatic. See Posting #80 above.

Each case is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, an Allocution (formally declaration), or a Renunciation (relinquishing citizenship or nationality) before the authorities will demonstrate the intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

Phoenall, et al,

There may be a provision. These actions are usually an irrevocable process.

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 ?

(COMMENT)

It is not as easy as you might think; and it is not automatic. See Posting #80 above.

Each case is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, an Allocution (formally declaration), or a Renunciation (relinquishing citizenship or nationality) before the authorities will demonstrate the intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

Bingo, a case by case basis

Actually the conventions require Israel to determine the status of all within the disputed territory, on a case by case basis.

And to treat segregate combatants from non combatants. Female combatants must be held separately from male combatants. so forth.

So now we have a group of combatants. Is any nation required to maintain hostile combatants on its soil indefinitely ?

 

[Boston1]

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

A classic example of the Israeli's taking the higher road and shooting themselves in the foot in the process.

I think the use of the term palestinian in reference to Arab Muslims in Israel is disingenuous at best. Given that the term wasn't invented util about 1968 and that its used to fake the indigenous status of colonists mostly from the early to mid 20 century second Arab colonial period.

for the purposes of this conversation I take all Arab Muslims in Israel to have one of two standings. Either having accepted citizenship of Israel or not.

Having not accepted citizenship, those Arab Muslims fall under the Geneva Conventions.

Having accepted citizenship, those Arab Muslims fall under Israeli law.

IMHO any nation has a right to expel a hostile force regardless of statehood or lack thereof of the enemy combatants. The overlying principals of a nations right to defend itself do not require it to first check national status of each enemy combatant prior to engaging an aggressor in self defense.

You'd have to show that non citizens are granted protection under Israeli law rather than they fall under the Geneva Conventions; before the law you managed to dig up ( nice find by the way ) applied.

I also notice there is no consensus in law of this forced repatriation issue. Its pretty much a flip of the coin.

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, et al,

There may be a provision. These actions are usually an irrevocable process.

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 ?

(COMMENT)

It is not as easy as you might think; and it is not automatic. See Posting #80 above.

Each case is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, an Allocution (formally declaration), or a Renunciation (relinquishing citizenship or nationality) before the authorities will demonstrate the intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the case of many Palestinians they will take on Palestinian citizenship that does not require them to carry any I.D. papers. In effect giving them dual nationality making it easy for Israel to deport them to Palestine (gaza)

 

[Boston1]

I'd be OK sending them to Gaza. Just open gate and insert.

Be real easy AND might even satisfy those who think Israel is somehow responsible for who takes the little darlings.

 

[Shusha]

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.
​

Rocco,

Would you be able to outline your opinion on the citizenship of the parties to the conflict (other than those who are obviously Israeli citizens) from 1925 ish through 1988?

Was there a time when some would have been considered "stateless"?

 

[Boston1]

I'm finding legal precedence right and left for forced repatriation. The US and allies did it in WW2 with Operation Keelhaul ;--)

Completely ignoring all complaints of refoulment

That particular case even went to court where the plaintiff lost ;--)

Also see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...7ajG2d_NJPs0OjGn2wQctQ&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Quote

2. Repatriation

When hostilities cease, prisoners of war shall be repatriated. The duty to repatriate is premised on the fact that repatriation is a return to a normal situation and that it is assumed that in most situations the prisoner of war would want to be repatriated after the cessation of the hostilities.30 Those who refuse to be repatriated can apply for asylum in the detaining State, as described in Section III (B)(4), infra.31


End Quote

I haven't found section III (B)(4), infra.31 yet but I have to go to work so oh well.

But long story short the host nation is not required to offer asylum to combatants although a combatant may apply for it as described in that section I don't have time to look up at the moment

Anyone care to dig that up while I'm slaving away ?

 

[Phoenall]

I'm finding legal precedence right and left for forced repatriation. The US and allies did it in WW2 with Operation Keelhaul ;--)

Completely ignoring all complaints of refoulment

That particular case even went to court where the plaintiff lost ;--)

Also see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi9qLH4g9XLAhWkr4MKHXDvCIYQFgg2MAQ&url=http://www.unhcr.org/40ebf49a4.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFTENTjsB5KaYcuAXekXgzHuoINzg&sig2=7ajG2d_NJPs0OjGn2wQctQ&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Quote

2. Repatriation

When hostilities cease, prisoners of war shall be repatriated. The duty to repatriate is premised on the fact that repatriation is a return to a normal situation and that it is assumed that in most situations the prisoner of war would want to be repatriated after the cessation of the hostilities.30 Those who refuse to be repatriated can apply for asylum in the detaining State, as described in Section III (B)(4), infra.31


End Quote

I haven't found section III (B)(4), infra.31 yet but I have to go to work so oh well.

But long story short the host nation is not required to offer asylum to combatants although a combatant may apply for it as described in that section I don't have time to look up at the moment

Anyone care to dig that up while I'm slaving away ?

Here you go it is on page 19




4. Duty of States to prevent subversive acts directed at other States
States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State.101 States shall not tolerate foreign nationals being involved in subversive activities against any other State, including their country of origin, and using their territory to plan or wage attacks against another State.102 The host State has a responsibility to prevent such acts.

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, et al,

This is a pretty straight forward question.

Would you be able to outline your opinion on the citizenship of the parties to the conflict (other than those who are obviously Israeli citizens) from 1925 ish through 1988?

Was there a time when some would have been considered "stateless"?

(COMMENT)

I'll do the best that I can.

Jordan and West Bank:

• 15 May 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. While still part of the Mandate for Palestine (Article 26 of the Mandate), the people between the Jordan River and the border of Mesopotamia (another British Mandate) were citizens of the Emarate. Prior to that 1923, these people were citizens of the Civil Administration of Palestine (AKA: The Government of Palestine) under the Administration of the Mandatory.

• Between 1925 to 1948, the People of the West Bank were citizens under the established successor government, provided for by the Allied Powers, to the Ottoman/Turkish Empire (followed by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration) following the surrender of all rights and title over the territories to the Allied Powers.

• 22 March 1946, the Mandatory Power (His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India), by the Treaty of Alliance, recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State, ending the British mandate, and (one Monarch to another) recognized His Highness The Amir (Abdullah) as the sovereign thereof. On 25 May 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The people of that former territory under Mandate became citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom; a status that holds true to this day.

On 3 April 1949, a General Armistice Agreement was concluded between the Hashemite Kingdom and Israel. The people of the West Bank were came under the effective control of the Hashemite Kingdom. Approximately a year later, on 11 April 1950, the representatives of the Palestinian people in the West Bank joined with the Parliament of Jordan and voted to be annexed into Hashemite Kingdom proper. This was known as the "Unification of the Two-Banks, and All the West Bank inhabitance automatically became citizens of Jordan Citizens.

In October 1974, the Seventh Arab Summit Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco, affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. But no independent state was created. Thus, the West Bank Population remained Jordanian.

On 31 July 1988, HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank and politically abandon the territory to the Israeli Forces which had effective control at that time. The territory was no longer under Jordanian sovereignty (terra nullius); AND Israel must have effectively occupied the territory. At this point, the Arab Palestinians were "stateless" but under the protection of Israel --- with their citizenship effectively withdrawn by the Hashemite Kingdom.

On 15 November 1988, the PLO proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif); without an enforceable diplomatic objection by the Israelis. Thus, the people of the occupied Palestinians Territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) became citizens of the State of Palestine under the sole representation of the PLO.
​

Egypt and Gaza Strip:

• Between 1925 to 1948, the People of the Gaza Strip were citizens under the established successor government, provided for by the Allied Powers, to the Ottoman/Turkish Empire (followed by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration) following the surrender of all rights and title over the territories to the Allied Powers.

• On 22 September 1948, the All Palestine Government (APG), under the encouragement of the Mandatory Power, attempted to Declare Independence over the entirety of the pre-May 1948 territory under the administration of the Mandate for Palestine.

• On 24 February 1949, Effectively resulting in the limited jurisdiction over the Egyptian Military Governorship over Gaza. Arab Palestinians answering to the APG, theoretically became citizens of the APG; under the protection of the Egyptian Military. The APG was dissolved in 1959, and the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip became remained protectorates of the Egyptians.

• On 26 March 1979, Egypt and Israel signed a formal treaty to establish peace and "normal and friendly relations;" effectively ending the war between the two countries. The Armistice Line was dissolved and a permanent international border established. Israel assumed the duties of the Occupation Authority. The Arab Palestinian maintain the protected persons status under the effective control until the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 1988.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The Nazis tried to claim that parts of occupied territory were controlled by "partisans" therefore they could not be the "occupying power" responsible for not adhering to international law regarding the occupied population. This was found to be incorrect in the Nuremberg "Hostages" case which concluded: "....While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant...."

http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Hostage Case090901mit deckblatt.pdf

The Jews have shown that they can, at any time assume physical control of Gaza a section of Palestine. Hence, Gaza is occupied under international law, even if we disregard the fact that Israel controls the air space, territorial sea and land border. Not mention the fact that Israel collects taxes in Gaza.

 

[montelatici]

As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians. A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan. Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation. It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" , was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

The virtual victim routine that pro-Palestinians play is never going to be that effective. The attempt, by the Arab Palestinians that actually had NAZI political and military associations with the NAZIs, to compare Jewish and Israeli activities with those of the NAZIs is simply an invalid analogy.

The Nazis tried to claim that parts of occupied territory were controlled by "partisans" therefore they could not be the "occupying power" responsible for not adhering to international law regarding the occupied population. This was found to be incorrect in the Nuremberg "Hostages" case which concluded: "....While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant...."

http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Hostage Case090901mit deckblatt.pdf

The Jews have shown that they can, at any time assume physical control of Gaza a section of Palestine. Hence, Gaza is occupied under international law, even if we disregard the fact that Israel controls the air space, territorial sea and land border. Not mention the fact that Israel collects taxes in Gaza.

(COMMENT)

Not that it actually means anything, but the control of all operational forces, on both sides, is temporary. All Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist, and Asymmetric Forces evolve and have a life cycle. On a different scale, the anti-Jihadist, counter-insurgency, anti-Terrorist and suppression units, and the forces that detect, exploit and neutralize dangerous asymmetric activities also have successive life cycles.

On the matter of "Occupation:"

Occupation and international humanitarian law: Questions and Answers
04-08-2004
A series of questions and answers by the ICRC's legal team on what defines occupation, the laws that apply, how people are protected, and the ICRC's role.
​

1. What is occupation?

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.
​

4. When does occupation come to an end?

The normal way for an occupation to e nd is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes " actually placed under the authority of the hostile army " (H R, art. 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.
​

It is an invalid argument that Israel can establish effective control over the Gaza Strip at will. In fact, the exact opposite is true. At no time, and during no engagement has the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) actually been able to achieve its goal:

• To stop rocket fire into Israel and weapons smuggling into the Gaza strip.
• To stop Hamas’ incessant rocket attacks against Israel’s civilians.
​

The law is quite clear, without regard to pro-Palestinian interpretation: The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians. A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan. Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation. It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" , was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.

(COMMENT)

They have been many Arab Palestinians that asked me: What happened? I was a Jordanian one day, --- stateless the next.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks History of Jordan Request Rejected of the Two Banks

Jordan: Stop Withdrawing Nationality from Palestinian-Origin Citizens][/SIZE]
Authorities Arbitrarily Withdraw Nationality From More Than 2,700; Hundreds of Thousands at Risk
(Amman) - Jordan should stop withdrawing nationality arbitrarily from Jordanians of Palestinian origin, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Authorities stripped more than 2,700 of these Jordanians of their nationality between 2004 and 2008, and the practice continued in 2009, Human Rights Watch said.

The 60-page report, "Stateless Again: Palestinian-Origin Jordanians Deprived of their Nationality", details the arbitrary manner, with no clear basis in law, in which Jordan deprives its citizens who were originally from the West Bank of their nationality, thereby denying them basic citizenship rights such as access to education and health care.

"Jordan is playing politics with the basic rights of thousands of its citizens," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Officials are denying entire families the ability to lead normal lives with the sense of security that most citizens of a country take for granted."

Jordanian officials have defended the practice, as a means to counter any future Israeli plans to transfer the Palestinian population of the Israeli-occupied West Bank to Jordan.

Jordan captured the West Bank in 1949 following the first Arab-Israeli war, and in 1950 extended sovereignty there, granting all residents Jordanian nationality. In 1988, however, King Hussein severed Jordan's legal and administrative ties to the West Bank, relinquishing claims to sovereignty there and withdrawing Jordanian nationality from all Palestinians who resided in the West Bank at the time.

Jordan, in essence made a decision to cut their losses and to drop the albatross that bit the hand that feed it. And Jordan dropped the Arab-Palestinians rights, freedoms and responsibilities enjoyed by all Jordanians --- was sanctioned by the Arab League; in fact, it was enthusiastically endorsed to set the West Bank Arab Palestinians into that condition.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians. A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan. Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation. It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" , was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.

Good point thanks.

A paradoxical legal status had emerged in regard to Palestinian nationality in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 1948. Shortly after invading and occupying the area of Palestine that lies to the west of the Jordan River, Jordan decided by an amendment to the Trans-Jordan Nationality Law, enacted on 13 December 1949, to confer its nationality on Palestinian residents in the West Bank. The Jordanian Nationality Law of 1954 had reaffirmed the status of Jordanian citizens on these residents of the West Bank, which was annexed to Jordan in 1950. Here, the conferment of Jordanian nationality had no effect under international law because Jordan had no right whatsoever to annex that part of Palestine. Such conferment produced effects only under the Jordanian law and not in accordance with international law.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​

The Palestinians retained their Palestinian citizenship and nationality. It was still Palestinian territory but under occupation.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

The virtual victim routine that pro-Palestinians play is never going to be that effective. The attempt, by the Arab Palestinians that actually had NAZI political and military associations with the NAZIs, to compare Jewish and Israeli activities with those of the NAZIs is simply an invalid analogy.

The Nazis tried to claim that parts of occupied territory were controlled by "partisans" therefore they could not be the "occupying power" responsible for not adhering to international law regarding the occupied population. This was found to be incorrect in the Nuremberg "Hostages" case which concluded: "....While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant...."

http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Hostage Case090901mit deckblatt.pdf

The Jews have shown that they can, at any time assume physical control of Gaza a section of Palestine. Hence, Gaza is occupied under international law, even if we disregard the fact that Israel controls the air space, territorial sea and land border. Not mention the fact that Israel collects taxes in Gaza.

(COMMENT)

Not that it actually means anything, but the control of all operational forces, on both sides, is temporary. All Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist, and Asymmetric Forces evolve and have a life cycle. On a different scale, the anti-Jihadist, counter-insurgency, anti-Terrorist and suppression units, and the forces that detect, exploit and neutralize dangerous asymmetric activities also have successive life cycles.

On the matter of "Occupation:"

Occupation and international humanitarian law: Questions and Answers
04-08-2004
A series of questions and answers by the ICRC's legal team on what defines occupation, the laws that apply, how people are protected, and the ICRC's role.
​

1. What is occupation?

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.
​

4. When does occupation come to an end?

The normal way for an occupation to e nd is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes " actually placed under the authority of the hostile army " (H R, art. 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.
​

It is an invalid argument that Israel can establish effective control over the Gaza Strip at will. In fact, the exact opposite is true. At no time, and during no engagement has the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) actually been able to achieve its goal:

• To stop rocket fire into Israel and weapons smuggling into the Gaza strip.
• To stop Hamas’ incessant rocket attacks against Israel’s civilians.
​

The law is quite clear, without regard to pro-Palestinian interpretation: The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians. A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan. Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation. It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" , was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.

(COMMENT)

They have been many Arab Palestinians that asked me: What happened? I was a Jordanian one day, --- stateless the next.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks History of Jordan Request Rejected of the Two Banks

Jordan: Stop Withdrawing Nationality from Palestinian-Origin Citizens][/SIZE]
Authorities Arbitrarily Withdraw Nationality From More Than 2,700; Hundreds of Thousands at Risk
(Amman) - Jordan should stop withdrawing nationality arbitrarily from Jordanians of Palestinian origin, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Authorities stripped more than 2,700 of these Jordanians of their nationality between 2004 and 2008, and the practice continued in 2009, Human Rights Watch said.

The 60-page report, "Stateless Again: Palestinian-Origin Jordanians Deprived of their Nationality", details the arbitrary manner, with no clear basis in law, in which Jordan deprives its citizens who were originally from the West Bank of their nationality, thereby denying them basic citizenship rights such as access to education and health care.

"Jordan is playing politics with the basic rights of thousands of its citizens," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Officials are denying entire families the ability to lead normal lives with the sense of security that most citizens of a country take for granted."

Jordanian officials have defended the practice, as a means to counter any future Israeli plans to transfer the Palestinian population of the Israeli-occupied West Bank to Jordan.

Jordan captured the West Bank in 1949 following the first Arab-Israeli war, and in 1950 extended sovereignty there, granting all residents Jordanian nationality. In 1988, however, King Hussein severed Jordan's legal and administrative ties to the West Bank, relinquishing claims to sovereignty there and withdrawing Jordanian nationality from all Palestinians who resided in the West Bank at the time.

Jordan, in essence made a decision to cut their losses and to drop the albatross that bit the hand that feed it. And Jordan dropped the Arab-Palestinians rights, freedoms and responsibilities enjoyed by all Jordanians --- was sanctioned by the Arab League; in fact, it was enthusiastically endorsed to set the West Bank Arab Palestinians into that condition.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Arab League did not approve the annexation, in fact, there were moves to expel Jordan from the league. Only the UK and the US recognized the annexation. The Palestinians that were given citizenship did not enjoy equal rights in Jordan, Bedouins (real Jordanians) had more rights to jobs and position in the military. Plus, Palestinians were relegated to refugee camps in Jordan.

 

[Boston1]

Well this was an interesting read

From

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sttzrmXHpwDr74f3GMsyvA&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc
Quote

Introductory text


Combatants are members of armed forces. The main feature of their status in international armed conflicts is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into enemy hands, they become prisoners of war who may not be punished for having directly participated in hostilities. It is often considered that customary law allows a detaining power to deny its own nationals prisoner-of-war status, even if they fall into its hands as members of enemy armed forces. In any event, such persons may be punished under domestic law for their mere participation in hostilities against their own country.

Combatants have an obligation to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population. If they violate IHL they must be punished, but they do not lose their combatant status and, if captured by the enemy, remain entitled to prisoner-of-war status, except if they have violated their obligation to distinguish themselves.

Persons who have lost combatant status or never had it, but nevertheless directly participate in hostilities, may be referred to as "unprivileged combatants" – because they do not have the combatant's privilege to commit acts of hostility – or as "unlawful combatants" – because their acts of hostility are not permitted by IHL. The status of such persons has given rise to controversy.

Some argue that they must perforce be civilians. This argument is based on the letter of IHL treaties. In the conduct of hostilities, Art. 50(1) of Protocol I defines civilians as all those who are not "referred to in Article 4(A)(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol". Once they have fallen into enemy hands, Art. 4 of Convention IV defines as protected civilians all those who fulfil the nationality requirements and are not protected by Convention III. This would mean that any enemy who is not protected by Convention III falls under Convention IV.

Those who oppose that view argue that a person who does not fulfil the requirements for combatant status is an "unlawful combatant" and belongs to a third category. Like "lawful combatants", it is claimed, such "unlawful combatants" may be attacked until they surrender or are otherwise hors de combat and may be detained without judicial decision. The logic of this argument is that those who do not comply with the conditions set for a status should not be privileged compared to those who do.

Those who insist on the complementarity and exclusivity of combatant and civilian status reply that lawful combatants can be easily identified, based on objective criteria, which they will normally not deny (i.e. membership in the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict), while the membership and past behaviour of unprivileged combatants and the future threat they represent can only be determined individually. As "civilians", unprivileged combatants may be attacked while they unlawfully directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, Convention IV does not bar their punishment for unlawful participation in hostilities. In addition, it permits administrative detention for imperative security reasons. From a teleological perspective, it is feared that the concept of "unlawful combatants", denied the protection of Convention IV, could constitute an easy escape category for detaining powers, as the Geneva Conventions contain no rule about the treatment of someone who is neither a combatant nor a civilian (see, however, P I, Art. 75).

End Quote

Having lost civilian status and there being no agreement on forced repatriation particularly as a form of judicial punishment there seems little doubt that Israel would be within its rights to repatriate stateless persons outside its boundaries

 

[Phoenall]

The Nazis tried to claim that parts of occupied territory were controlled by "partisans" therefore they could not be the "occupying power" responsible for not adhering to international law regarding the occupied population. This was found to be incorrect in the Nuremberg "Hostages" case which concluded: "....While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant...."

http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Hostage Case090901mit deckblatt.pdf

The Jews have shown that they can, at any time assume physical control of Gaza a section of Palestine. Hence, Gaza is occupied under international law, even if we disregard the fact that Israel controls the air space, territorial sea and land border. Not mention the fact that Israel collects taxes in Gaza.

NOPE they have not shown that at all, if they could then hamas would be a stain on the floor by now and the land would be under Israeli military control. They can invade at any time due to the constant bombardment of illegal weapons that are classed as a war crime, but they can never gain full control of the land

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

The virtual victim routine that pro-Palestinians play is never going to be that effective. The attempt, by the Arab Palestinians that actually had NAZI political and military associations with the NAZIs, to compare Jewish and Israeli activities with those of the NAZIs is simply an invalid analogy.

The Nazis tried to claim that parts of occupied territory were controlled by "partisans" therefore they could not be the "occupying power" responsible for not adhering to international law regarding the occupied population. This was found to be incorrect in the Nuremberg "Hostages" case which concluded: "....While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant...."

http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Hostage Case090901mit deckblatt.pdf

The Jews have shown that they can, at any time assume physical control of Gaza a section of Palestine. Hence, Gaza is occupied under international law, even if we disregard the fact that Israel controls the air space, territorial sea and land border. Not mention the fact that Israel collects taxes in Gaza.

(COMMENT)

Not that it actually means anything, but the control of all operational forces, on both sides, is temporary. All Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist, and Asymmetric Forces evolve and have a life cycle. On a different scale, the anti-Jihadist, counter-insurgency, anti-Terrorist and suppression units, and the forces that detect, exploit and neutralize dangerous asymmetric activities also have successive life cycles.

On the matter of "Occupation:"

Occupation and international humanitarian law: Questions and Answers
04-08-2004
A series of questions and answers by the ICRC's legal team on what defines occupation, the laws that apply, how people are protected, and the ICRC's role.
​

1. What is occupation?

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.
​

4. When does occupation come to an end?

The normal way for an occupation to e nd is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes " actually placed under the authority of the hostile army " (H R, art. 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.
​

It is an invalid argument that Israel can establish effective control over the Gaza Strip at will. In fact, the exact opposite is true. At no time, and during no engagement has the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) actually been able to achieve its goal:

• To stop rocket fire into Israel and weapons smuggling into the Gaza strip.
• To stop Hamas’ incessant rocket attacks against Israel’s civilians.
​

The law is quite clear, without regard to pro-Palestinian interpretation: The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians. A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan. Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation. It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" , was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.

(COMMENT)

They have been many Arab Palestinians that asked me: What happened? I was a Jordanian one day, --- stateless the next.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks History of Jordan Request Rejected of the Two Banks

Jordan: Stop Withdrawing Nationality from Palestinian-Origin Citizens][/SIZE]
Authorities Arbitrarily Withdraw Nationality From More Than 2,700; Hundreds of Thousands at Risk
(Amman) - Jordan should stop withdrawing nationality arbitrarily from Jordanians of Palestinian origin, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Authorities stripped more than 2,700 of these Jordanians of their nationality between 2004 and 2008, and the practice continued in 2009, Human Rights Watch said.

The 60-page report, "Stateless Again: Palestinian-Origin Jordanians Deprived of their Nationality", details the arbitrary manner, with no clear basis in law, in which Jordan deprives its citizens who were originally from the West Bank of their nationality, thereby denying them basic citizenship rights such as access to education and health care.

"Jordan is playing politics with the basic rights of thousands of its citizens," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Officials are denying entire families the ability to lead normal lives with the sense of security that most citizens of a country take for granted."

Jordanian officials have defended the practice, as a means to counter any future Israeli plans to transfer the Palestinian population of the Israeli-occupied West Bank to Jordan.

Jordan captured the West Bank in 1949 following the first Arab-Israeli war, and in 1950 extended sovereignty there, granting all residents Jordanian nationality. In 1988, however, King Hussein severed Jordan's legal and administrative ties to the West Bank, relinquishing claims to sovereignty there and withdrawing Jordanian nationality from all Palestinians who resided in the West Bank at the time.

Jordan, in essence made a decision to cut their losses and to drop the albatross that bit the hand that feed it. And Jordan dropped the Arab-Palestinians rights, freedoms and responsibilities enjoyed by all Jordanians --- was sanctioned by the Arab League; in fact, it was enthusiastically endorsed to set the West Bank Arab Palestinians into that condition.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Arab League did not approve the annexation, in fact, there were moves to expel Jordan from the league. Only the UK and the US recognized the annexation. The Palestinians that were given citizenship did not enjoy equal rights in Jordan, Bedouins (real Jordanians) had more rights to jobs and position in the military. Plus, Palestinians were relegated to refugee camps in Jordan.

All that you have wrote shows that the arab muslims have no intention of abiding by any laws other than their own. And still you support and defend them more than you support and defend America

 

[Phoenall]

As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians. A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan. Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation. It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" , was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.

Good point thanks.

A paradoxical legal status had emerged in regard to Palestinian nationality in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 1948. Shortly after invading and occupying the area of Palestine that lies to the west of the Jordan River, Jordan decided by an amendment to the Trans-Jordan Nationality Law, enacted on 13 December 1949, to confer its nationality on Palestinian residents in the West Bank. The Jordanian Nationality Law of 1954 had reaffirmed the status of Jordanian citizens on these residents of the West Bank, which was annexed to Jordan in 1950. Here, the conferment of Jordanian nationality had no effect under international law because Jordan had no right whatsoever to annex that part of Palestine. Such conferment produced effects only under the Jordanian law and not in accordance with international law.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​

The Palestinians retained their Palestinian citizenship and nationality. It was still Palestinian territory but under occupation.

And who granted Palestine ownership of this land without the sovereign owners permission ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians. A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan. Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation. It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" , was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.

Good point thanks.

A paradoxical legal status had emerged in regard to Palestinian nationality in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 1948. Shortly after invading and occupying the area of Palestine that lies to the west of the Jordan River, Jordan decided by an amendment to the Trans-Jordan Nationality Law, enacted on 13 December 1949, to confer its nationality on Palestinian residents in the West Bank. The Jordanian Nationality Law of 1954 had reaffirmed the status of Jordanian citizens on these residents of the West Bank, which was annexed to Jordan in 1950. Here, the conferment of Jordanian nationality had no effect under international law because Jordan had no right whatsoever to annex that part of Palestine. Such conferment produced effects only under the Jordanian law and not in accordance with international law.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​

The Palestinians retained their Palestinian citizenship and nationality. It was still Palestinian territory but under occupation.

And who granted Palestine ownership of this land without the sovereign owners permission ?

The Palestinians were the owners. The LoN and the Mandate were merely trustees.

 

[Phoenall]

As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians. A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan. Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation. It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" , was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.

Good point thanks.

A paradoxical legal status had emerged in regard to Palestinian nationality in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 1948. Shortly after invading and occupying the area of Palestine that lies to the west of the Jordan River, Jordan decided by an amendment to the Trans-Jordan Nationality Law, enacted on 13 December 1949, to confer its nationality on Palestinian residents in the West Bank. The Jordanian Nationality Law of 1954 had reaffirmed the status of Jordanian citizens on these residents of the West Bank, which was annexed to Jordan in 1950. Here, the conferment of Jordanian nationality had no effect under international law because Jordan had no right whatsoever to annex that part of Palestine. Such conferment produced effects only under the Jordanian law and not in accordance with international law.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​

The Palestinians retained their Palestinian citizenship and nationality. It was still Palestinian territory but under occupation.

And who granted Palestine ownership of this land without the sovereign owners permission ?

The Palestinians were the owners. The LoN and the Mandate were merely trustees.

Then produce the relevant documentation that makes them the owners, bearing in mind that the Jews owned 22% of Palestine centred on the coastal plain and Jerusalem. The arab muslims inhabited 78% that was east of the Jordan river and part of Mesopotamia ( Syria )

Now find me the link granting the Palestinians ownership, and it must state that Palestine was given the land