Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[anotherlife]

Of course not, they were all executed and dragged through the streets

Typical terrorist response to anyone who suggests peace

Diss the charter and you sleep with the fishes.

Collaborators are complicit in murder and treason.

Both serious offenses.

EYUP. Of course, under the auspices of islamo-barbarism, there's no reason to believe that Islamo-justice is served by a trial, with you know, a period of discovery, or with witnesses present. Islamo-barbarian justice of the Arab-Moslem kind is served by Islamic terrorists who mow down people in their barbarian version of street justice.

Criminal gangs of Islamic terrorists meting out islamo-justice to their fellow Islamic terrorists.

Collaboration is a big problem in Gaza. Killing people at random, as you imply, does not address that problem.

IOW, you are full of crap.

So, tell us about the trial proceedings.

Otherwise, define what constitutes "collaboration" with reference to Joooooos obviously.

I just think it's so cute that the Islamic terrorists in Gaza are nothing more than ISIS lite.

This is easy to answer. Political science documents, that the more isolation and segmentation a military imposes on a neighboring population, the more collaboration stories are invented, which then starts the induced self destruction of that neighbor. So far, this technique has been used in Europe too, but only by Jewish power brokers.

 

[Phoenall]

Well this was an interesting read

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiSrNiTotrLAhWFgYMKHUnsBkwQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/book-chapter/the-combatants-pow-book-chapter.htm&usg=AFQjCNFisn-uPC8_Bc0NeurCRvs9D5abMg&sig2=5ZegILlFaiQJnTeCelMu9Q&bvm=bv.117604692,d.amc


Quote

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

End Quote

Argo again Israel would be free to expel unprivaledged combatants. The requirement only being that detainees be delivered to the point of embarkation in good condition.

ICRC service

which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population.​

What if you are a civilian defending yourself from military attack?

What would be the proper form of dress?

They should still wear something that sets them apart as unarmed civilians. That is International law.

Those are the laws of war.

What kind of war is it when one side has an army attacking civilians on the other side?

Palestine has never had an army. Whose uniform should they wear? What would be wrong with a civilian "uniform" if that is what they are?

Normal war of course, and the Palestinians should refrain from doing it if they don't want to end up charged with war crimes and genocide

They have under the terms of the Geneva conventions and IHL, it is called a militia or irregulars

 

[Phoenall]

Erdogan would probably give Boston a job. Under Boston's crazy interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, Erdogan would have the right to expel most of the Kurds from Turkey.

"Suruc massacre: 'Turkish student' was suicide bomber


The attacker, named by local media as Seyh Abdurrahman Alagoz, was an ethnic Kurd from Turkey's south-eastern province of Adiyaman...."

Suruc massacre: 'Turkish student' was suicide bomber - BBC News

WRONG AGAIN LOSER Just the suicide bomber if he had lived.

Please learn English

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The concept of "legal" and "illegal" are simply wrong in the evaluation of the Jordanian action to annex. The action was, by no means an acute decision or a spontaneous action. It was the consequence of the behind the seen action by the (largely invisible) Allied Hand that collaboratively worked with the King Abdullah’s Arab Legion (Jordanian Army) . The Arab Legion, trained and led by serving British Officers, captured the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and seized control of the territory we call today as the West Bank.

While most people understood that HM's Government, as the Mandatory, was opposed to the Partition Plan adopted by the General Assembly, what most people were unaware of was the Invisible Hand involvement in the 1948 War of Independence against the Jewish Forces allowed the Arab Legion to expand Jordanian control. Jordan's objective, all along, was to enhance Jordan's economic, agricultural, and commercial capacity. By seizing the West Bank, doubled Jordan’s population was doubled.

While the Arab League generally opposed Jordanian Annexation, the greatest objection came from the embryonic Arab Militants that would eventually evolve into the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) whose Fedayeen would later ignite a Civil War in Jordan and show the true colors of the Arab Palestinian. The leadership of the Arab Militants (pre-PLO) refused to accept accept the sovereign leadership from Amman.

This is why the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank was never recognised by the UN or any country other than the UK and Pakistan.

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I did not miss the point.

You missed the point. The Jordanian Nationality Law was invalid according to international law because it was illegal for Jordan to annex that land.

Just because a (foreign) government does something does not make it legal.

Foreign governments have no authority to change land, borders, or citizenship of a country.

(COMMENT)

The West Bank Palestinians sent representative to the Jordanian Parliament and exercised their right to self-determination, to become part of Jordan.

It has always been the radical Islamist that promote conflict that objected. They wanted to continue the fight, and to engage in terrorism. They were never interested in the people and what would better help them.

Most Respectfully,
R

I heard the Jordan hand picked some Palestinian "leaders" who would go along with their scam. The world did not buy it and considered that Jordan held the West Bank in trust.

Like I said, just because a foreign government does something does not make it legal.

(COMMENT)

There are very few actions taken that the entire world agrees upon, let alone the political implications of adopting the UN Special Commission Recommendation.

EXCERPT: General Information about the National Assembly
"Following Palestine Partition Resolution and the ensuing 1948 war, the Jordanian State directed its efforts towards uniting the East and West Banks, thus, holding parliamentary elections covering both Banks on April 11th 1950. The first Senate Council was dissolved to appoint new members including members from the West Bank. The Jordanian political system is based on the separation of the three powers (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary). Subsequently, the newly elected Council officially endorsed the unity of East Jordan and the West Bank on the 24th of April 1950."
SOURCE: Jordanian Parliament Website
​

The membership to the Parliament was through an electoral process. I've said this many times. The Annexation was a consequence of the Arab-Palestinian exercising the right to self-determination.

It should also be pointed out that Jordan was not a full member of the United Nations until 14 December 1955. It was only then that Jordan came under the Charter. However, this is the paradox: The UN General Assembly and Security Council were well aware in December of 1955 that Jordan had annexed the West Bank in 1950.

• If the interpretation in the 1950' was that Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank, then why was it admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council?
​

Time changes all things.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The concept of "legal" and "illegal" are simply wrong in the evaluation of the Jordanian action to annex. The action was, by no means an acute decision or a spontaneous action. It was the consequence of the behind the seen action by the (largely invisible) Allied Hand that collaboratively worked with the King Abdullah’s Arab Legion (Jordanian Army) . The Arab Legion, trained and led by serving British Officers, captured the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and seized control of the territory we call today as the West Bank.

While most people understood that HM's Government, as the Mandatory, was opposed to the Partition Plan adopted by the General Assembly, what most people were unaware of was the Invisible Hand involvement in the 1948 War of Independence against the Jewish Forces allowed the Arab Legion to expand Jordanian control. Jordan's objective, all along, was to enhance Jordan's economic, agricultural, and commercial capacity. By seizing the West Bank, doubled Jordan’s population was doubled.

While the Arab League generally opposed Jordanian Annexation, the greatest objection came from the embryonic Arab Militants that would eventually evolve into the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) whose Fedayeen would later ignite a Civil War in Jordan and show the true colors of the Arab Palestinian. The leadership of the Arab Militants (pre-PLO) refused to accept accept the sovereign leadership from Amman.

This is why the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank was never recognised by the UN or any country other than the UK and Pakistan.

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I did not miss the point.

You missed the point. The Jordanian Nationality Law was invalid according to international law because it was illegal for Jordan to annex that land.

Just because a (foreign) government does something does not make it legal.

Foreign governments have no authority to change land, borders, or citizenship of a country.

(COMMENT)

The West Bank Palestinians sent representative to the Jordanian Parliament and exercised their right to self-determination, to become part of Jordan.

It has always been the radical Islamist that promote conflict that objected. They wanted to continue the fight, and to engage in terrorism. They were never interested in the people and what would better help them.

Most Respectfully,
R

I heard the Jordan hand picked some Palestinian "leaders" who would go along with their scam. The world did not buy it and considered that Jordan held the West Bank in trust.

Like I said, just because a foreign government does something does not make it legal.

(COMMENT)

There are very few actions taken that the entire world agrees upon, let alone the political implications of adopting the UN Special Commission Recommendation.

EXCERPT: General Information about the National Assembly
"Following Palestine Partition Resolution and the ensuing 1948 war, the Jordanian State directed its efforts towards uniting the East and West Banks, thus, holding parliamentary elections covering both Banks on April 11th 1950. The first Senate Council was dissolved to appoint new members including members from the West Bank. The Jordanian political system is based on the separation of the three powers (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary). Subsequently, the newly elected Council officially endorsed the unity of East Jordan and the West Bank on the 24th of April 1950."
SOURCE: Jordanian Parliament Website
​

The membership to the Parliament was through an electoral process. I've said this many times. The Annexation was a consequence of the Arab-Palestinian exercising the right to self-determination.

It should also be pointed out that Jordan was not a full member of the United Nations until 14 December 1955. It was only then that Jordan came under the Charter. However, this is the paradox: The UN General Assembly and Security Council were well aware in December of 1955 that Jordan had annexed the West Bank in 1950.

• If the interpretation in the 1950' was that Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank, then why was it admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council?
​

Time changes all things.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of this refutes my post.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. You should know that.

Membership in the UN is purely political. It has nothing to do with legalities.

 

[anotherlife]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The concept of "legal" and "illegal" are simply wrong in the evaluation of the Jordanian action to annex. The action was, by no means an acute decision or a spontaneous action. It was the consequence of the behind the seen action by the (largely invisible) Allied Hand that collaboratively worked with the King Abdullah’s Arab Legion (Jordanian Army) . The Arab Legion, trained and led by serving British Officers, captured the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and seized control of the territory we call today as the West Bank.

While most people understood that HM's Government, as the Mandatory, was opposed to the Partition Plan adopted by the General Assembly, what most people were unaware of was the Invisible Hand involvement in the 1948 War of Independence against the Jewish Forces allowed the Arab Legion to expand Jordanian control. Jordan's objective, all along, was to enhance Jordan's economic, agricultural, and commercial capacity. By seizing the West Bank, doubled Jordan’s population was doubled.

While the Arab League generally opposed Jordanian Annexation, the greatest objection came from the embryonic Arab Militants that would eventually evolve into the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) whose Fedayeen would later ignite a Civil War in Jordan and show the true colors of the Arab Palestinian. The leadership of the Arab Militants (pre-PLO) refused to accept accept the sovereign leadership from Amman.

This is why the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank was never recognised by the UN or any country other than the UK and Pakistan.

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I did not miss the point.

You missed the point. The Jordanian Nationality Law was invalid according to international law because it was illegal for Jordan to annex that land.

Just because a (foreign) government does something does not make it legal.

Foreign governments have no authority to change land, borders, or citizenship of a country.

(COMMENT)

The West Bank Palestinians sent representative to the Jordanian Parliament and exercised their right to self-determination, to become part of Jordan.

It has always been the radical Islamist that promote conflict that objected. They wanted to continue the fight, and to engage in terrorism. They were never interested in the people and what would better help them.

Most Respectfully,
R

I heard the Jordan hand picked some Palestinian "leaders" who would go along with their scam. The world did not buy it and considered that Jordan held the West Bank in trust.

Like I said, just because a foreign government does something does not make it legal.

(COMMENT)

There are very few actions taken that the entire world agrees upon, let alone the political implications of adopting the UN Special Commission Recommendation.

EXCERPT: General Information about the National Assembly
"Following Palestine Partition Resolution and the ensuing 1948 war, the Jordanian State directed its efforts towards uniting the East and West Banks, thus, holding parliamentary elections covering both Banks on April 11th 1950. The first Senate Council was dissolved to appoint new members including members from the West Bank. The Jordanian political system is based on the separation of the three powers (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary). Subsequently, the newly elected Council officially endorsed the unity of East Jordan and the West Bank on the 24th of April 1950."
SOURCE: Jordanian Parliament Website
​

The membership to the Parliament was through an electoral process. I've said this many times. The Annexation was a consequence of the Arab-Palestinian exercising the right to self-determination.

It should also be pointed out that Jordan was not a full member of the United Nations until 14 December 1955. It was only then that Jordan came under the Charter. However, this is the paradox: The UN General Assembly and Security Council were well aware in December of 1955 that Jordan had annexed the West Bank in 1950.

• If the interpretation in the 1950' was that Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank, then why was it admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council?
​

Time changes all things.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of this refutes my post.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. You should know that.

Membership in the UN is purely political. It has nothing to do with legalities.

Very interesting. It may be illegal to annex occupied territories, but only temporarily. International law also says, that annexation is legal, if it reduces the loss of life there. So, the occupying force needs to do only a fast killing field until the day of annexation, after which point it reduces its kill rate, and then the annexation is legal. This principle has been widely used in Europe, ever since the end of ww1, and is now extended to the Middle East.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,, et al,

OK, so you don't see or recognize the UN Charter as an International Treaty. I don't really care.

None of this refutes my post.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. You should know that.

Membership in the UN is purely political. It has nothing to do with legalities.

(COMMENT)

If you completely discount the UN Charter as a source of international law, THEN, what law (pre-1950) are you claiming has been violated?

Which entity broke the law?

• The Arab-Palestinians that voted to accept annexation and citizenship?

• The Parliament that extended the offer of annexation and citizenship?
​

If an international law was violated, what country petitioned the International Court of Justice to settle the claim in accordance with international law --- the legal disputes submitted to it by States claiming the violation.

Like so many people, you don't see the greater picture.

Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory. Occasionally, as in the Allied military occupation of Germany after the cessation of hostilities in World War II was not followed by annexation. When military occupation results in annexation, an official announcement is normal, to the effect that the sovereign authority of the annexing state has been established and will be maintained in the future. Israel made such a declaration when it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. The subsequent recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied. Annexation based on the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations.
SOURCE #1: Encyclopedia Britannica
​

•∆• Remembering of course that you said: "Membership in the UN is purely political. It has nothing to do with legalities." Most discussion center on the UN Charter and Security Council Resolution 242, 22 November 1967.

So I would be appreciative if you would point-out the law for which Jordan (UN Membership 1955) was in violation in 1950; that will help me with my understanding and discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

Interesting, so Israel would be within its legal rights to simply annex the disputed territories once it employs the GC to clear out hostiles.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The concept of "legal" and "illegal" are simply wrong in the evaluation of the Jordanian action to annex. The action was, by no means an acute decision or a spontaneous action. It was the consequence of the behind the seen action by the (largely invisible) Allied Hand that collaboratively worked with the King Abdullah’s Arab Legion (Jordanian Army) . The Arab Legion, trained and led by serving British Officers, captured the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and seized control of the territory we call today as the West Bank.

While most people understood that HM's Government, as the Mandatory, was opposed to the Partition Plan adopted by the General Assembly, what most people were unaware of was the Invisible Hand involvement in the 1948 War of Independence against the Jewish Forces allowed the Arab Legion to expand Jordanian control. Jordan's objective, all along, was to enhance Jordan's economic, agricultural, and commercial capacity. By seizing the West Bank, doubled Jordan’s population was doubled.

While the Arab League generally opposed Jordanian Annexation, the greatest objection came from the embryonic Arab Militants that would eventually evolve into the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) whose Fedayeen would later ignite a Civil War in Jordan and show the true colors of the Arab Palestinian. The leadership of the Arab Militants (pre-PLO) refused to accept accept the sovereign leadership from Amman.

This is why the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank was never recognised by the UN or any country other than the UK and Pakistan.

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I did not miss the point.

You missed the point. The Jordanian Nationality Law was invalid according to international law because it was illegal for Jordan to annex that land.

Just because a (foreign) government does something does not make it legal.

Foreign governments have no authority to change land, borders, or citizenship of a country.

(COMMENT)

The West Bank Palestinians sent representative to the Jordanian Parliament and exercised their right to self-determination, to become part of Jordan.

It has always been the radical Islamist that promote conflict that objected. They wanted to continue the fight, and to engage in terrorism. They were never interested in the people and what would better help them.

Most Respectfully,
R

I heard the Jordan hand picked some Palestinian "leaders" who would go along with their scam. The world did not buy it and considered that Jordan held the West Bank in trust.

Like I said, just because a foreign government does something does not make it legal.

(COMMENT)

There are very few actions taken that the entire world agrees upon, let alone the political implications of adopting the UN Special Commission Recommendation.

EXCERPT: General Information about the National Assembly
"Following Palestine Partition Resolution and the ensuing 1948 war, the Jordanian State directed its efforts towards uniting the East and West Banks, thus, holding parliamentary elections covering both Banks on April 11th 1950. The first Senate Council was dissolved to appoint new members including members from the West Bank. The Jordanian political system is based on the separation of the three powers (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary). Subsequently, the newly elected Council officially endorsed the unity of East Jordan and the West Bank on the 24th of April 1950."
SOURCE: Jordanian Parliament Website
​

The membership to the Parliament was through an electoral process. I've said this many times. The Annexation was a consequence of the Arab-Palestinian exercising the right to self-determination.

It should also be pointed out that Jordan was not a full member of the United Nations until 14 December 1955. It was only then that Jordan came under the Charter. However, this is the paradox: The UN General Assembly and Security Council were well aware in December of 1955 that Jordan had annexed the West Bank in 1950.

• If the interpretation in the 1950' was that Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank, then why was it admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council?
​

Time changes all things.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of this refutes my post.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. You should know that.

Membership in the UN is purely political. It has nothing to do with legalities.

Again you make a far reaching statement without clarifying the laws you are trying to use. When did it become law to stop the annexation of occupied territory, and what law was enacted.
The reason I ask is because muslims are annexing occupied territory all the time and nothing is said or done about it.

 

[Boston1]

Arab Muslims in Israel are right now trying to annex land intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland. Yet I don't hear a lot of complaining as long as it takes land from Israel and gives it to the racists and bigots.

I have to wonder if those same people would equally support Israel's effort to finally incorporate this last of the land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland given that Israel has the significantly stronger claim and that the Arab Muslims have virtually no claim other than the "want it" for a future state.

But before Israel annexes the remainder of the area west of the Jordan, it first needs to clear out the hostiles and send them packing. Employing the GC to their full advantage.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure this is true (but it could be).

And I'm not sure it is to Israel's advantage to do such a thing (legal or illegal ---- right or wrong ---- ethical or unethical ---- practical or impractical).

Interesting, so Israel would be within its legal rights to simply annex the disputed territories once it employs the GC to clear out hostiles.

(REFERENCE)

​

Criteria:

• Placed under the authority.
• The Authority is a Hostile Army.
• The "occupation" only extends to where such authority can be exercised.
​

(COMMENT)

The question of whether or not the Jordanian Annexation of 1950 was exercised under an "occupation" depends on if the Jordanian action meets the criteria of being a "occupation of the territory known as the West Bank.

• Was the Jordanian military entry into the West Bank a Hostile Army.
• The PCIJ ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements:

(i) Was there an intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent?
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous?
​

• Did Jordan have the ability (manpower and resources in place) to enforce the occupation?
• What the presents of the Arab League considered hostile?
​

The only reason that the Geneva Convention is being applied, is because there is no other standard to use under belligerent conditions versus friendly conditions. Clearly the Arab Palestinians embraced the Arab Legion under friendly condition, rather than the belligerence under the IDF presence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure this is true (but it could be).

And I'm not sure it is to Israel's advantage to do such a thing (legal or illegal ---- right or wrong ---- ethical or unethical ---- practical or impractical).

Interesting, so Israel would be within its legal rights to simply annex the disputed territories once it employs the GC to clear out hostiles.

(REFERENCE)

View attachment 69252
​

Criteria:

• Placed under the authority.
• The Authority is a Hostile Army.
• The "occupation" only extends to where such authority can be exercised.
​

(COMMENT)

The question of whether or not the Jordanian Annexation of 1950 was exercised under an "occupation" depends on if the Jordanian action meets the criteria of being a "occupation of the territory known as the West Bank.

• Was the Jordanian military entry into the West Bank a Hostile Army.
• The PCIJ ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements:

(i) Was there an intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent?
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous?
​

• Did Jordan have the ability (manpower and resources in place) to enforce the occupation?
• What the presents of the Arab League considered hostile?​

The only reason that the Geneva Convention is being applied, is because there is no other standard to use under belligerent conditions versus friendly conditions. Clearly the Arab Palestinians embraced the Arab Legion under friendly condition, rather than the belligerence under the IDF presence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, but the Arab Muslims of the disputed territories weren't the only people involved and it could be easily said the Jordanian invasion of land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland was a hostile invasion and many Judaic people living there were forced to flee what to them was a hostile invation. One must also remember that the Arabs also confiscated much Israeli land in the war of 48 in Israel proper, which was subsequently won back in the war of 67. In which case again the term "friendly" is highly subjective. Looks like the PCIJ criteria could be easily applied to both parties.

Which is why I suggested Israel first vet every Arab Muslim individually regarding their status as combatants ( legal or not ) or non combatants ( refugees or civilians ) And upon determining eligibility for repatriation remove all hostiles from the territory. Exactly as specified within the GCs. At which point the remaining people would be considered "friendlies" ? ;--)

The PCIJ is obsolete and dissolved with the collapse of the LoN or shortly thereafter and before the advent of the last iteration of the GC. Its subsequent embodiment is the ICJ which has limited authority over international treaties like the GCs. Ergo I doubt the PCIJ legitimacy of friendly intentions, regarding occupation. Also this whole requirement for friendly occupation is only a stipulation within the PCIJ literature and not found in the GC. So which takes precedence ? Does the PCIJ supersede the GC and does it have authority to add special clauses and articles to that original document? If so why would the signatories be bound by the amended articles if they didn't specifically sign and formally agree to them in the first place ? Is this a judgement or an advisory opinion ? Does the court have authority to dictate treaty changes without consulting each treaty member ? Does a court which no longer exists have any authority today ?

Another angle would be that Israel was never divided. Legally it always encompassed everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area. The green line was never a legally recognized boundary according to the Arabs at least. Ergo the majority of Israelis would see the rout of Jordanian forces and the reintegration of this last territory back to its intended purpose as a friendly gesture ;--)

Friendly being an extremely ambiguous term.

In the end IMHO Israel's only real requirement here is that she employ the GC to the letter. Which means determining how to treat unlawful combatants, segregating male and female POWs from non combatants. Determining who is eligible for repatriation and addressing the issues of refoulment and forced repatriation.

Again IMHO none of which are insurmountable issues. Israel could simple force the undesirables into Gaza and let them have their precious state there where there's inevitably going to be one anyway.

The peaceful ones are welcome of course to stay. And then once the area is peacefully so called occupied Israel is within its rights to annex it, even meeting the criteria of the defunct PCIJ.

IE prior to annexation Israel only needs to create the circumstance for a legal annexation, which IMHO is the strict application of the GCs

 

[Boston1]

Didn't mean to throw a wrench into the works there Rocco. I actually enjoy your posts tremendously. I was just noticing that an advisory opinion from a defunct court likely has no effect on the world politic today.

The tenants that we must adhere to in war are those laid out by the Geneva Convention and only the GC as by including any number of other opinions would so muddy the waters that nothing of a definitive nature be possible.

And of course I suggest that Israel adhere to the GC tenants diligently and immediately in order to end the violence sooner than later.

 

[montelatici]

Who are these GC tenants that you say we must adhere to. What are we renting to these GCs?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici,

OH --- for heaven's sake.

Who are these GC tenants that you say we must adhere to. What are we renting to these GCs?

(COMMENT)

It is not like we did not know what he meant to spell.

• A tenet is a principle held as being true, especially by an organization or a group of people.
​

There are many homophones, that I have typed in error. But it is not like we are writing our dissertation here (hear).

v/r
R

 

[montelatici]

Yes, there are too many homophobes. I agree.

 

[Challenger]

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

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

 

[Boston1]

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

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

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

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

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

You might try actually reading them from time to time.

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

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

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

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

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

The peaceful among them of course are welcome to stay.

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

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

 

[Phoenall]

Yes, there are too many homophobes. I agree.

You being one of them

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

So why did we see 1 million displaced Jews evicted from their homes in the arab lands including the west bank. And then Jordan enacting a property law stealing the Jews land from them and not having to pay compensation.


Tell you what rat boy why don't you draw these borders on a map and see what you come up with



Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:11


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


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

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

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

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

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

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.




This by the way is the legal borders of Israel as declared by the LoN in 1922