Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[montelatici]

The aggressors were the European settlers. They began evicting the native non-Jews and destroying native towns and villages. The Arab League's intervention was in response to the ethnic cleansing (and general massacre) of the native non-Jews by the European settlers. British intelligence reported on the situation and recently declassified intelligence reports confirm this fact.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'............After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes"."

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you tell truths --- but only partial truths.

Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable? Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence? There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.

Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain. There was no treaty with Israel. When Britain left Palestine it passed the torch to the UNPC to take over the administration of Palestine. However, when it was time to take over their responsibility they didn't bother to show up.

Nothing in that time period makes any sense. In the 1949 UN Armistice agreements all of Palestine was still called Palestine. Israel was not mentioned.

(COMMENT)

• Yes, Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain. However, in 1946, Britain was still the Mandatory and Transjordan bordered another Mandate --- Iraq. But that is only one way of assuming territorial sovereignty.

• In the case of Israel, independence was acquired through the right of self-determination. The Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government followed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as recommended and adopted in Resolution 181(II). Later, in treaties established with Egypt and Jordan, border disputes were resolved and permanent international boundaries were set.
​

The Israel accepted the offer and recommendations adopted by the General Assembly. As was consistent with the attitude expressed and the diplomatic history of the Arabs, they rejected all options available to them that would have led to independence and sovereignty.

In 1949, the Armistice Arrangements were made with the State of Israel and the warring parties of the border states. The fact that the Armistice Lines may follow (in places) the demarcation established in connection with the territories formerly under the various mandates. "Palestine" is merely a territorial name for one particular mandate as was determined by the Allied Powers.

• Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
• Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
• Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
• Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
​

The 11 May 1949, UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), admits Israel in the UN and recalls the November 29, 1947. The use of the name "Palestine" representing the territory that was formerly under the Mandate of that same name will always remain a historically significant name that will apply to that territory that was determined by the Allied Powers. But it will never carry with it the implication that you attempt to attach to here in this exchange. Each of the Armistice Agreements are between the Military Representative of the Israeli Defense Force and the Military Representative of each of the other adjacent states at war. The implication that something special or significant pertaining to the use (of not) for the name Israel is fraudulent and politically fallacious.

The applicability of the Mandate ended with the termination of the the Mandate to a specific Mandatory. A Mandate is an authority and order that speaks directly to a Mandatory (in the case of Palestine --- Britain). Upon the termination of the Mandate, the successor government (the UNPC) assumes control under Article 77 (1a) of the Charter:

Chapter XII Article 77
1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

a. territories now held under mandate;
b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration
​

As a direct result of the Arab League Military Intervention and aggression, the UN and the Security Council established the UN Mediator and Truce Commission to replace the UNPC after the outbreak of hostilities initiated by the Arab League states. Again, the implication ("when it was time to take over their responsibility they didn't bother to show up") is both fraudulent and politically fallacious. This is misinformation in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the implementation. Never-the-less --- the expansion of territory control and sovereignty was a direct result of battlefield losses by Aggressor Arab Forces and the Israeli Defense Force hot pursuit.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Israel accepted the offer and recommendations adopted by the General Assembly.​

Not true. Do you want me to pull out more things that are not true? There are many. Or perhaps you could re-post taking out everything that is false.

 

[Boston1]

Yikes

Maybe you two should swap phone numbers and discuss the BS on your own time ;--)

Neither of you seem to have any idea of the present subject or the simple facts that make the GC apply.

Lets review

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

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

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

III Geneva convention

Quote

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

End Quote

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

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention

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

III Convention

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

End Quote

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

Quote

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

End Quote

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

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

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

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

End Quote

And the grand finale'

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

Quote

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

End Quote

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

 

[montelatici]

You haven't a clue about what you are talking about Bison. You can't repatriate native people from their native land, it is a contradiction in terms. You ethnically cleanse them.

 

[Boston1]

You haven't a clue about what you are talking about Bison. You can't repatriate native people from their native land, it is a contradiction in terms. You ethnically cleanse them.

Wrong, any enemy combatant can be repatriated against their will or not. Country of origin is irrelevant to the defending party. Check the UN charter concerning every countries right to defend itself.

And the beautiful part, is that the host nation is not responsible for determining country of origin or their place of final destination. If you believe otherwise, feel free to provide supporting documentation within the Geneva Conventions.

The ONLY legal requirement is that they be delivered to the point of egress in good condition.

So if you disagree, feel free to show us within the Geneva Conventions of course where it supports your point of view ;--) exactly as I have.

Couldn't help but notice you didn't provide one shred of supporting literature ;--)

 

[montelatici]

You still haven't figured out what repatriation means. You are hilarious.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What the hell are you talking about.

The Israel accepted the offer and recommendations adopted by the General Assembly.

Not true. Do you want me to pull out more things that are not true? There are many. Or perhaps you could re-post taking out everything that is false.

(COMMENT)

You are claiming that Israel did not accept the 181(II) criteria?
You are claiming what else is not correct?

(d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

• 
  “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

Be specific about what YOU think is false.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[Boston1]

You still haven't figured out what repatriation means. You are hilarious.

LOL Can't help but notice you failed to respond to any of the previous or quote Geneva Convention articles supporting your view.

Repatriation

What requirements concerning repatriation is Israel required to fulfill ?

Bring it on Ole Been, bring it on.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What the hell are you talking about.

The Israel accepted the offer and recommendations adopted by the General Assembly.

Not true. Do you want me to pull out more things that are not true? There are many. Or perhaps you could re-post taking out everything that is false.

(COMMENT)

You are claiming that Israel did not accept the 181(II) criteria?
You are claiming what else is not correct?

(d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

• 
  “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

Be specific about what YOU think is false.

Most Respectfully,
R​

You are claiming that Israel did not accept the 181(II) criteria?

It is obvious that they didn't. They just lied about accepting it to pretend to have some legitimacy.

 

[montelatici]

You still haven't figured out what repatriation means. You are hilarious.

LOL Can't help but notice you failed to respond to any of the previous or quote Geneva Convention articles supporting your view.

Repatriation

What requirements concerning repatriation is Israel required to fulfill ?

Bring it on Ole Been, bring it on.

Until you understand what the word "repatriation" means, it makes no sense addressing the rest of the nonsense you write.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I see. This is just your interpretation of events. ("They just lied about accepting...")

You are claiming that Israel did not accept the 181(II) criteria?

It is obvious that they didn't. They just lied about accepting it to pretend to have some legitimacy.

(COMMENT)

The Conflict actually began with attacks by irregular militia of Hostile Palestinian Arabs attached to the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and Israeli Forces forces.

Israel Declared its Independence on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, and the magnitude of the conflict grew as other Arab League Forces, joining the Hostile Army Palestinians, which advanced on into the territory formerly under the Mandate. On 15 May, the Arabs League Forces launched a series of airstrikes on Tel Aviv. This set of air actions was followed by the ground invasion by Arab League Forces from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt (including a Saudi Arabia contingent placed under Egyptian command). British trained and led forces from Transjordan eventually introduced in the conflict, but only in areas that had been designated as part of the Arab State under UN Resolution 181(II) (Part II Section "A") --- and --- the separated special City of Jerusalem (Part II Section "C"). After tense early fighting, Israeli forces, now under joint command, were able to gain the offensive.

This was the opening of the Israeli War of Independence. As was warned by the UN Palestine Commission in First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine (A/AC.21/ 9 S/676
16 February 1948), "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." AND, in fact, even though the Arab League Forces actually lost ground that had been designated as part of the Arab State under UN Resolution 181(II) (Part II Section "A") - it was partially successful in halting any further implementation of the Resolution. The course of Israel actually fulfilling any further obligations under Resolution 181(II) was intentionally prevented by the uprising of the irregular militia of Hostile Palestinian Arabs attached to the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army --- and the introduction of Arab League Forces.

(POLITICALLY)

Up to that point, the Arab League, through the voice of the Arab Higher Committee (speaking for the Arab Palestinians), persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.” And still today, there are opposing faction on the Israeli side, as well as the Arab-Palestinian side, that hold opposing views as to the status and impact of Resolution 181(II).

But there is no question that the Resolution 181(II) was then --- is now --- and will be in the future --- an important historical record of intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I see. This is just your interpretation of events. ("They just lied about accepting...")

You are claiming that Israel did not accept the 181(II) criteria?

It is obvious that they didn't. They just lied about accepting it to pretend to have some legitimacy.

(COMMENT)

The Conflict actually began with attacks by irregular militia of Hostile Palestinian Arabs attached to the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and Israeli Forces forces.

Israel Declared its Independence on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, and the magnitude of the conflict grew as other Arab League Forces, joining the Hostile Army Palestinians, which advanced on into the territory formerly under the Mandate. On 15 May, the Arabs League Forces launched a series of airstrikes on Tel Aviv. This set of air actions was followed by the ground invasion by Arab League Forces from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt (including a Saudi Arabia contingent placed under Egyptian command). British trained and led forces from Transjordan eventually introduced in the conflict, but only in areas that had been designated as part of the Arab State under UN Resolution 181(II) (Part II Section "A") --- and --- the separated special City of Jerusalem (Part II Section "C"). After tense early fighting, Israeli forces, now under joint command, were able to gain the offensive.

This was the opening of the Israeli War of Independence. As was warned by the UN Palestine Commission in First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine (A/AC.21/ 9 S/676
16 February 1948), "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." AND, in fact, even though the Arab League Forces actually lost ground that had been designated as part of the Arab State under UN Resolution 181(II) (Part II Section "A") - it was partially successful in halting any further implementation of the Resolution. The course of Israel actually fulfilling any further obligations under Resolution 181(II) was intentionally prevented by the uprising of the irregular militia of Hostile Palestinian Arabs attached to the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army --- and the introduction of Arab League Forces.

(POLITICALLY)

Up to that point, the Arab League, through the voice of the Arab Higher Committee (speaking for the Arab Palestinians), persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.” And still today, there are opposing faction on the Israeli side, as well as the Arab-Palestinian side, that hold opposing views as to the status and impact of Resolution 181(II).

But there is no question that the Resolution 181(II) was then --- is now --- and will be in the future --- an important historical record of intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

advanced on into the territory formerly under the Mandate.​

The place was Palestine. Why do you use Israel's propaganda term?

Notice that they did not say advanced into Israeli territory.

BTW, why do the propagandists say that they attacked Israel?

 

[Challenger]

The Conflict actually began with attacks by irregular militia of Hostile Palestinian Arabs attached to the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and Israeli Forces forces.

Really? That's one interpretation.

The true facts however, are a bit more nuanced. The first Palestinian Muslim attack occured at 08:20 AM on November 30th (after the Partition Resolution had been passed) which made it technically the first hostile act of the civil war. Eight men led by Sief al-Din abu Kishk, killed 5 jewish colonists and wounded several others, the same group attacked another bus killing 2 more. Later that day various groups of Palestinian gunmen sniped at Jewish buses and settlements. According to some Haganah intelligence reports (IDF achives), these events were never ordered by the AHC, ALA or HWA. Interestingly, the Haganah Intelligence Service ultimately decided that the motivation for these attacks was in fact revenge for the murder by Lehi, ten days previously ,of 5 men of the abu-Kisk tribe. The AHC response to the Partition resolution was a 3 day strike on 1st December. On the 2nd December there was a riot in Jerusalem (allegedly instigated by the Grand Mufti) when a mob attacked Jewish commercial properties during which several Jewish peole were injured. Haganah units opened fire on the rioters and the civil war escalated from then.

 

[Challenger]

Hostile Army Palestinians

No such thing.

 

[Challenger]

On 15 May, the Arabs League Forces launched a series of airstrikes on Tel Aviv.

Actual fact: 2 Egyptian Spitfire Mk9s (obsolete) straffed the IAF airbase near to Tel Aviv, destroying most of the aircraft based there. The Egyptian Airforce did, however, carry out several more attacks on Tel Aviv over the days that followed.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

You are absolutely correct here. I apologize --- my mistake.

Hostile Army Palestinians

No such thing.

(COMMENT --- NO EXCUSE)

Sometimes my fingers type faster then my mind. My mind is beginning to get slower as Old Man Syndrome sets-in; I had a senior moment. In this case, I meant to say "Hostile ARAB Palestinians (HoAP).

Apologized and thank you for the correction.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

You still haven't figured out what repatriation means. You are hilarious.

LOL Can't help but notice you failed to respond to any of the previous or quote Geneva Convention articles supporting your view.

Repatriation

What requirements concerning repatriation is Israel required to fulfill ?

Bring it on Ole Been, bring it on.

Until you understand what the word "repatriation" means, it makes no sense addressing the rest of the nonsense you write.

You seem afraid to read through the Conventions to learn what the term means Monty ;--)

Whats wrong, worried you'll find out Israel has very specific obligations toward POWs and they don't include determining the final destination of those who qualify for repatriation ?

Israel is only responsible for delivering them to the point of debarkation in good condition. There isn't even a requirement that there be an agreement with the country they are delivering them into.

 

[montelatici]

You still haven't figured out what repatriation means. You are hilarious.

LOL Can't help but notice you failed to respond to any of the previous or quote Geneva Convention articles supporting your view.

Repatriation

What requirements concerning repatriation is Israel required to fulfill ?

Bring it on Ole Been, bring it on.

Until you understand what the word "repatriation" means, it makes no sense addressing the rest of the nonsense you write.

You seem afraid to read through the Conventions to learn what the term means Monty ;--)

Whats wrong, worried you'll find out Israel has very specific obligations toward POWs and they don't include determining the final destination of those who qualify for repatriation ?

Israel is only responsible for delivering them to the point of debarkation in good condition. There isn't even a requirement that there be an agreement with the country they are delivering them into.

You still don't understand what the word "repatriation" means, so it makes no sense to debunk what you have debunked yourself.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is too funny.

advanced on into the territory formerly under the Mandate.

The place was Palestine. Why do you use Israel's propaganda term?

Notice that they did not say advanced into Israeli territory.

BTW, why do the propagandists say that they attacked Israel?

(COMMENT)

The language used, and grammatically correct variation, come from the definition in the first "Palestine Order in Council of 1922" (not Israeli Propaganda).

PART I.

PRELIMINARY.

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

By treaty, the authority to define the Mandate was stipulated as: "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers." It was neither a territory defined by the Arab People or the Jewish People. So it cannot be attributed to either.

The phrase "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" was valid up to 15 May 1948 when the Mandate Terminated. Thereafter, it was "the territory formerly under the Mandate" or some proper variation thereof; or associated as a new Trusteeship. The language depends on whether you are looking backwards or forwards.

One of the simplest explanations of the system, that I've seen, actually came from "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: League of Nations Mandate; "The mandate system was established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, entered into on 28 June 1919. With the dissolution of the League of Nations after World War II, it was stipulated at the Yalta Conference that the remaining Mandates should be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations, subject to future discussions and formal agreements. Most of the remaining mandates of the League of Nations (with the exception of South-West Africa) thus eventually became United Nations Trust Territories." This, in effect, was the backbone behind Chapter XII of the UN Charter --- a decision made by the Heads of State from the Major Allied Powers.

Generalities

All of the territories subject to League of Nations mandates were previously controlled by states defeated in World War I, principally Imperial Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The mandates were fundamentally different from the protectorates in that the Mandatory power undertook obligations to the inhabitants of the territory and to the League of Nations.

The process of establishing the mandates consisted of two phases:

1. The formal removal of sovereignty of the state previously controlling the territory.
2. The transfer of mandatory powers to individual states among the Allied Powers.

Theoretically, it could also be described as the territory formerly under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration; OR, former territory of the Ottoman Empire.

Just because it does not fit the Arab Palestinian agenda (everything is theirs), does not mean it is Israel Propaganda.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is too funny.

advanced on into the territory formerly under the Mandate.

The place was Palestine. Why do you use Israel's propaganda term?

Notice that they did not say advanced into Israeli territory.

BTW, why do the propagandists say that they attacked Israel?

(COMMENT)

The language used, and grammatically correct variation, come from the definition in the first "Palestine Order in Council of 1922" (not Israeli Propaganda).

PART I.

PRELIMINARY.

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

By treaty, the authority to define the Mandate was stipulated as: "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers." It was neither a territory defined by the Arab People or the Jewish People. So it cannot be attributed to either.

The phrase "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" was valid up to 15 May 1948 when the Mandate Terminated. Thereafter, it was "the territory formerly under the Mandate" or some proper variation thereof; or associated as a new Trusteeship. The language depends on whether you are looking backwards or forwards.

One of the simplest explanations of the system, that I've seen, actually came from "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: League of Nations Mandate; "The mandate system was established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, entered into on 28 June 1919. With the dissolution of the League of Nations after World War II, it was stipulated at the Yalta Conference that the remaining Mandates should be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations, subject to future discussions and formal agreements. Most of the remaining mandates of the League of Nations (with the exception of South-West Africa) thus eventually became United Nations Trust Territories." This, in effect, was the backbone behind Chapter XII of the UN Charter --- a decision made by the Heads of State from the Major Allied Powers.

Generalities

All of the territories subject to League of Nations mandates were previously controlled by states defeated in World War I, principally Imperial Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The mandates were fundamentally different from the protectorates in that the Mandatory power undertook obligations to the inhabitants of the territory and to the League of Nations.

The process of establishing the mandates consisted of two phases:

1. The formal removal of sovereignty of the state previously controlling the territory.
2. The transfer of mandatory powers to individual states among the Allied Powers.

Theoretically, it could also be described as the territory formerly under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration; OR, former territory of the Ottoman Empire.

Just because it does not fit the Arab Palestinian agenda (everything is theirs), does not mean it is Israel Propaganda.

Most Respectfully,
R

The mandates were fundamentally different from the protectorates in that the Mandatory power undertook obligations to the inhabitants of the territory and to the League of Nations.​

And Britain said that Palestine would still be a legal entity after they left. Palestine would still be there but would not be self governing.

Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,​

Palestine is still there and the Palestinians are still Palestinians.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;​

Could we assume that their territory is Palestine. Israel has always denied the existence of Palestine and the Palestinians but that is just a bunch of lies.

Link: A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights