UNSC Resolution

[flacaltenn]

It is disturbing to hear that president Obama is seriously thinking of supporting a UNSC resolution to create, delineate, and set a time frame for a two state solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestine imbroglio by-passing direct negotiations. Unless another UNSC member vetoes the resolution it will put Israel in dire straits with sanctions looming in the future. It doesn't take much forethought to realize the resolution will mandate the 1967 green line as the defacto border meaning that all settlements will be in Palestinian territory. It is further stated that Obama will not move on this until after the election so as not to impact the Democrat candidate's chances. It is ironic that an American president with the middle name of Hussein would be the one to lead an effort to undermine Israel.

'bout time someone set a time limit. I'm all for it.. With the proviso that the Palestinians have to get their act together within that time frame and elect and IMPLEMENT the proper leadership and government for those negotiations to happen.. If they DONT -- you form an Arab-Israeli Panel to IMPOSE a settlement on the Palestinians with the understanding that WHEN they get their act together organizationally, they will be slowly released to independent status...

Thats actually not a bad idea, however if I were the Israeli's I'd insist that civilians and legitimate refugees be segregated from combatants exactly as specified in both the UN regulations and the Geneva Conventions and that those combatants be repatriated to wherever.

I can't see why Israel should be demanded to lend aid and land to enemy combatants when no other country ever has.

But given those conditions and that Jerusalem not be divided, I think this would work. Hell Israel has offered a near complete withdrawal from the disputed territories before, they might be willing to do it again.

I would also hesitate to allow a body with 1/3 muslim representation to hold the fate of Israel in its hands. The UN doesn't exactly have a stellar record of acting impartially. So I'm not sure what would need to be done to ensure impartiality.

You can't tell combatants from refugees there -- anymore than you can tell on the Greek-Macedonian border...
A 13 yr old with a sling-shot today is tomorrow's "combatant" the way the story plays today..

Besides --- they currently have no legitimate government to represent them. They are state-less combatants. So it's impossible to make a treaty with them.... At least a deadline and an imposed INTERIM govt would give them a starting place to negotiate for terms.

The reason you're confused about combatants is -- there's never been a conflict where the occupation goes out 40+ years without a SURRENDER or armistice. Jordan/Egypt agreed to end hostilities with Israel in possession of their land. But Palestinians -- never did.

 

[Boston1]

It is disturbing to hear that president Obama is seriously thinking of supporting a UNSC resolution to create, delineate, and set a time frame for a two state solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestine imbroglio by-passing direct negotiations. Unless another UNSC member vetoes the resolution it will put Israel in dire straits with sanctions looming in the future. It doesn't take much forethought to realize the resolution will mandate the 1967 green line as the defacto border meaning that all settlements will be in Palestinian territory. It is further stated that Obama will not move on this until after the election so as not to impact the Democrat candidate's chances. It is ironic that an American president with the middle name of Hussein would be the one to lead an effort to undermine Israel.

'bout time someone set a time limit. I'm all for it.. With the proviso that the Palestinians have to get their act together within that time frame and elect and IMPLEMENT the proper leadership and government for those negotiations to happen.. If they DONT -- you form an Arab-Israeli Panel to IMPOSE a settlement on the Palestinians with the understanding that WHEN they get their act together organizationally, they will be slowly released to independent status...

Thats actually not a bad idea, however if I were the Israeli's I'd insist that civilians and legitimate refugees be segregated from combatants exactly as specified in both the UN regulations and the Geneva Conventions and that those combatants be repatriated to wherever.

I can't see why Israel should be demanded to lend aid and land to enemy combatants when no other country ever has.

But given those conditions and that Jerusalem not be divided, I think this would work. Hell Israel has offered a near complete withdrawal from the disputed territories before, they might be willing to do it again.

I would also hesitate to allow a body with 1/3 muslim representation to hold the fate of Israel in its hands. The UN doesn't exactly have a stellar record of acting impartially. So I'm not sure what would need to be done to ensure impartiality.

You can't tell combatants from refugees there -- anymore than you can tell on the Greek-Macedonian border...
A 13 yr old with a sling-shot today is tomorrow's "combatant" the way the story plays today..

Besides --- they currently have no legitimate government to represent them. They are state-less combatants. So it's impossible to make a treaty with them.... At least a deadline and an imposed INTERIM govt would give them a starting place to negotiate for terms.

The reason you're confused about combatants is -- there's never been a conflict where the occupation goes out 40+ years without a SURRENDER or armistice. Jordan/Egypt agreed to end hostilities with Israel in possession of their land. But Palestinians -- never did.

There's no confusion about combatants. Its well spelled out within the Geneva Conventions as well as the UN regulations.

Combatants are not protected persons. Period. There is no confusion.

The common articles of the Geneva Conventions clearly define that persons lose their protected status if they engage in combat against the state. Assist those who engage in combat or are suspected of assisting or engaging in combat against the state.

At which point they are either legal or illegal combatants.

You can't just offer to turn a bunch of Hamas terrorists loose on the Israeli public, the Israeli's will never go for it. You're going to have to face the reality that the violent among them can never be integrated into Israeli society.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is disturbing to hear that president Obama is seriously thinking of supporting a UNSC resolution to create, delineate, and set a time frame for a two state solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestine imbroglio by-passing direct negotiations. Unless another UNSC member vetoes the resolution it will put Israel in dire straits with sanctions looming in the future. It doesn't take much forethought to realize the resolution will mandate the 1967 green line as the defacto border meaning that all settlements will be in Palestinian territory. It is further stated that Obama will not move on this until after the election so as not to impact the Democrat candidate's chances. It is ironic that an American president with the middle name of Hussein would be the one to lead an effort to undermine Israel.

'bout time someone set a time limit. I'm all for it.. With the proviso that the Palestinians have to get their act together within that time frame and elect and IMPLEMENT the proper leadership and government for those negotiations to happen.. If they DONT -- you form an Arab-Israeli Panel to IMPOSE a settlement on the Palestinians with the understanding that WHEN they get their act together organizationally, they will be slowly released to independent status...

Thats actually not a bad idea, however if I were the Israeli's I'd insist that civilians and legitimate refugees be segregated from combatants exactly as specified in both the UN regulations and the Geneva Conventions and that those combatants be repatriated to wherever.

I can't see why Israel should be demanded to lend aid and land to enemy combatants when no other country ever has.

But given those conditions and that Jerusalem not be divided, I think this would work. Hell Israel has offered a near complete withdrawal from the disputed territories before, they might be willing to do it again.

I would also hesitate to allow a body with 1/3 muslim representation to hold the fate of Israel in its hands. The UN doesn't exactly have a stellar record of acting impartially. So I'm not sure what would need to be done to ensure impartiality.

You can't tell combatants from refugees there -- anymore than you can tell on the Greek-Macedonian border...
A 13 yr old with a sling-shot today is tomorrow's "combatant" the way the story plays today..

Besides --- they currently have no legitimate government to represent them. They are state-less combatants. So it's impossible to make a treaty with them.... At least a deadline and an imposed INTERIM govt would give them a starting place to negotiate for terms.

The reason you're confused about combatants is -- there's never been a conflict where the occupation goes out 40+ years without a SURRENDER or armistice. Jordan/Egypt agreed to end hostilities with Israel in possession of their land. But Palestinians -- never did.

There's no confusion about combatants. Its well spelled out within the Geneva Conventions as well as the UN regulations.

Combatants are not protected persons. Period. There is no confusion.

The common articles of the Geneva Conventions clearly define that persons lose their protected status if they engage in combat against the state. Assist those who engage in combat or are suspected of assisting or engaging in combat against the state.

At which point they are either legal or illegal combatants.

You can't just offer to turn a bunch of Hamas terrorists loose on the Israeli public, the Israeli's will never go for it. You're going to have to face the reality that the violent among them can never be integrated into Israeli society.

Nope,.. Combatants are defined and RESTRAINED by that same convention.. Because they fight for an entity that has SIGNED ON to that convention. Non of this applies to state-less combatants. Which is how Gitmo exists. It couldn't be an option under Geneva convention. But since these were fighters NOT SANCTIONED by a signatory to the treaty -- we can make them disappear.. You cannot separate an insurgent force from the general populace. No matter how hard you try. 12+ years of Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be the evidence.

Not EXACTLY the topic of this thread -- but it goes to having a RECOGNIZED DELEGATION and representation for the Palis as the 1st step for any path to peace. Those are the people you hold responsible for agreements and treaties,. Currently -- no one is identified in that capacity.

And we're not talking about integrating them (or Hamas) into another society. . They have their own.. And until they select responsible leadership -- some International plan will be required to put them under broader adminstration than just making it "Israels problem".. Whether that evolves from this UN proposal with the good feature of a deadline --- or not. But a UN plan cannot be FORCED on Israel until the Palis are adequately "represented"...

 

[Boston1]

It is disturbing to hear that president Obama is seriously thinking of supporting a UNSC resolution to create, delineate, and set a time frame for a two state solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestine imbroglio by-passing direct negotiations. Unless another UNSC member vetoes the resolution it will put Israel in dire straits with sanctions looming in the future. It doesn't take much forethought to realize the resolution will mandate the 1967 green line as the defacto border meaning that all settlements will be in Palestinian territory. It is further stated that Obama will not move on this until after the election so as not to impact the Democrat candidate's chances. It is ironic that an American president with the middle name of Hussein would be the one to lead an effort to undermine Israel.

'bout time someone set a time limit. I'm all for it.. With the proviso that the Palestinians have to get their act together within that time frame and elect and IMPLEMENT the proper leadership and government for those negotiations to happen.. If they DONT -- you form an Arab-Israeli Panel to IMPOSE a settlement on the Palestinians with the understanding that WHEN they get their act together organizationally, they will be slowly released to independent status...

Thats actually not a bad idea, however if I were the Israeli's I'd insist that civilians and legitimate refugees be segregated from combatants exactly as specified in both the UN regulations and the Geneva Conventions and that those combatants be repatriated to wherever.

I can't see why Israel should be demanded to lend aid and land to enemy combatants when no other country ever has.

But given those conditions and that Jerusalem not be divided, I think this would work. Hell Israel has offered a near complete withdrawal from the disputed territories before, they might be willing to do it again.

I would also hesitate to allow a body with 1/3 muslim representation to hold the fate of Israel in its hands. The UN doesn't exactly have a stellar record of acting impartially. So I'm not sure what would need to be done to ensure impartiality.

You can't tell combatants from refugees there -- anymore than you can tell on the Greek-Macedonian border...
A 13 yr old with a sling-shot today is tomorrow's "combatant" the way the story plays today..

Besides --- they currently have no legitimate government to represent them. They are state-less combatants. So it's impossible to make a treaty with them.... At least a deadline and an imposed INTERIM govt would give them a starting place to negotiate for terms.

The reason you're confused about combatants is -- there's never been a conflict where the occupation goes out 40+ years without a SURRENDER or armistice. Jordan/Egypt agreed to end hostilities with Israel in possession of their land. But Palestinians -- never did.

There's no confusion about combatants. Its well spelled out within the Geneva Conventions as well as the UN regulations.

Combatants are not protected persons. Period. There is no confusion.

The common articles of the Geneva Conventions clearly define that persons lose their protected status if they engage in combat against the state. Assist those who engage in combat or are suspected of assisting or engaging in combat against the state.

At which point they are either legal or illegal combatants.

You can't just offer to turn a bunch of Hamas terrorists loose on the Israeli public, the Israeli's will never go for it. You're going to have to face the reality that the violent among them can never be integrated into Israeli society.

Nope,.. Combatants are defined and RESTRAINED by that same convention.. Because they fight for an entity that has SIGNED ON to that convention. Non of this applies to state-less combatants. Which is how Gitmo exists. It couldn't be an option under Geneva convention. But since these were fighters NOT SANCTIONED by a signatory to the treaty -- we can make them disappear.. You cannot separate an insurgent force from the general populace. No matter how hard you try. 12+ years of Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be the evidence.

Not EXACTLY the topic of this thread -- but it goes to having a RECOGNIZED DELEGATION and representation for the Palis as the 1st step for any path to peace. Those are the people you hold responsible for agreements and treaties,. Currently -- no one is identified in that capacity.

And we're not talking about integrating them (or Hamas) into another society. . They have their own.. And until they select responsible leadership -- some International plan will be required to put them under broader adminstration than just making it "Israels problem".. Whether that evolves from this UN proposal with the good feature of a deadline --- or not. But a UN plan cannot be FORCED on Israel until the Palis are adequately "represented"...

Actually not. Only one party needs to have signed on to the convention, but since in this case both have.

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
• Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
• provisions:
• (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
• (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
• (b) taking of hostages;
• (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
• (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
• (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
• An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
• The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
• The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

End Quote

so lets review

Quote

The four 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers the Holy See and the State of Palestine,

End Quote

Israel also signed onto the geneva conventions as well.

So yeah, they apply

 

[flacaltenn]

'bout time someone set a time limit. I'm all for it.. With the proviso that the Palestinians have to get their act together within that time frame and elect and IMPLEMENT the proper leadership and government for those negotiations to happen.. If they DONT -- you form an Arab-Israeli Panel to IMPOSE a settlement on the Palestinians with the understanding that WHEN they get their act together organizationally, they will be slowly released to independent status...

Thats actually not a bad idea, however if I were the Israeli's I'd insist that civilians and legitimate refugees be segregated from combatants exactly as specified in both the UN regulations and the Geneva Conventions and that those combatants be repatriated to wherever.

I can't see why Israel should be demanded to lend aid and land to enemy combatants when no other country ever has.

But given those conditions and that Jerusalem not be divided, I think this would work. Hell Israel has offered a near complete withdrawal from the disputed territories before, they might be willing to do it again.

I would also hesitate to allow a body with 1/3 muslim representation to hold the fate of Israel in its hands. The UN doesn't exactly have a stellar record of acting impartially. So I'm not sure what would need to be done to ensure impartiality.

You can't tell combatants from refugees there -- anymore than you can tell on the Greek-Macedonian border...
A 13 yr old with a sling-shot today is tomorrow's "combatant" the way the story plays today..

Besides --- they currently have no legitimate government to represent them. They are state-less combatants. So it's impossible to make a treaty with them.... At least a deadline and an imposed INTERIM govt would give them a starting place to negotiate for terms.

The reason you're confused about combatants is -- there's never been a conflict where the occupation goes out 40+ years without a SURRENDER or armistice. Jordan/Egypt agreed to end hostilities with Israel in possession of their land. But Palestinians -- never did.

There's no confusion about combatants. Its well spelled out within the Geneva Conventions as well as the UN regulations.

Combatants are not protected persons. Period. There is no confusion.

The common articles of the Geneva Conventions clearly define that persons lose their protected status if they engage in combat against the state. Assist those who engage in combat or are suspected of assisting or engaging in combat against the state.

At which point they are either legal or illegal combatants.

You can't just offer to turn a bunch of Hamas terrorists loose on the Israeli public, the Israeli's will never go for it. You're going to have to face the reality that the violent among them can never be integrated into Israeli society.

Nope,.. Combatants are defined and RESTRAINED by that same convention.. Because they fight for an entity that has SIGNED ON to that convention. Non of this applies to state-less combatants. Which is how Gitmo exists. It couldn't be an option under Geneva convention. But since these were fighters NOT SANCTIONED by a signatory to the treaty -- we can make them disappear.. You cannot separate an insurgent force from the general populace. No matter how hard you try. 12+ years of Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be the evidence.

Not EXACTLY the topic of this thread -- but it goes to having a RECOGNIZED DELEGATION and representation for the Palis as the 1st step for any path to peace. Those are the people you hold responsible for agreements and treaties,. Currently -- no one is identified in that capacity.

And we're not talking about integrating them (or Hamas) into another society. . They have their own.. And until they select responsible leadership -- some International plan will be required to put them under broader adminstration than just making it "Israels problem".. Whether that evolves from this UN proposal with the good feature of a deadline --- or not. But a UN plan cannot be FORCED on Israel until the Palis are adequately "represented"...

Actually not. Only one party needs to have signed on to the convention, but since in this case both have.

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
• Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
• provisions:
• (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
• (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
• (b) taking of hostages;
• (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
• (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
• (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
• An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
• The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
• The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

End Quote

so lets review

Quote

The four 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers the Holy See and the State of Palestine,

End Quote

Israel also signed onto the geneva conventions as well.

So yeah, they apply

So go try and enforce that in International Court. That's how it would be done.. Who you gonna put on the summons?? It's unenforceable if the other party is a stateless insurgency.. Would be like trying to sue ISIS for the Paris attacks. Doesn't have a legal leg to stand on... Tell me who Israel should sue for violations...

Even the UN wouldn't recognize it as a legal enforcement of Geneva conventions..

 

[Boston1]

Thats actually not a bad idea, however if I were the Israeli's I'd insist that civilians and legitimate refugees be segregated from combatants exactly as specified in both the UN regulations and the Geneva Conventions and that those combatants be repatriated to wherever.

I can't see why Israel should be demanded to lend aid and land to enemy combatants when no other country ever has.

But given those conditions and that Jerusalem not be divided, I think this would work. Hell Israel has offered a near complete withdrawal from the disputed territories before, they might be willing to do it again.

I would also hesitate to allow a body with 1/3 muslim representation to hold the fate of Israel in its hands. The UN doesn't exactly have a stellar record of acting impartially. So I'm not sure what would need to be done to ensure impartiality.

You can't tell combatants from refugees there -- anymore than you can tell on the Greek-Macedonian border...
A 13 yr old with a sling-shot today is tomorrow's "combatant" the way the story plays today..

Besides --- they currently have no legitimate government to represent them. They are state-less combatants. So it's impossible to make a treaty with them.... At least a deadline and an imposed INTERIM govt would give them a starting place to negotiate for terms.

The reason you're confused about combatants is -- there's never been a conflict where the occupation goes out 40+ years without a SURRENDER or armistice. Jordan/Egypt agreed to end hostilities with Israel in possession of their land. But Palestinians -- never did.

There's no confusion about combatants. Its well spelled out within the Geneva Conventions as well as the UN regulations.

Combatants are not protected persons. Period. There is no confusion.

The common articles of the Geneva Conventions clearly define that persons lose their protected status if they engage in combat against the state. Assist those who engage in combat or are suspected of assisting or engaging in combat against the state.

At which point they are either legal or illegal combatants.

You can't just offer to turn a bunch of Hamas terrorists loose on the Israeli public, the Israeli's will never go for it. You're going to have to face the reality that the violent among them can never be integrated into Israeli society.

Nope,.. Combatants are defined and RESTRAINED by that same convention.. Because they fight for an entity that has SIGNED ON to that convention. Non of this applies to state-less combatants. Which is how Gitmo exists. It couldn't be an option under Geneva convention. But since these were fighters NOT SANCTIONED by a signatory to the treaty -- we can make them disappear.. You cannot separate an insurgent force from the general populace. No matter how hard you try. 12+ years of Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be the evidence.

Not EXACTLY the topic of this thread -- but it goes to having a RECOGNIZED DELEGATION and representation for the Palis as the 1st step for any path to peace. Those are the people you hold responsible for agreements and treaties,. Currently -- no one is identified in that capacity.

And we're not talking about integrating them (or Hamas) into another society. . They have their own.. And until they select responsible leadership -- some International plan will be required to put them under broader adminstration than just making it "Israels problem".. Whether that evolves from this UN proposal with the good feature of a deadline --- or not. But a UN plan cannot be FORCED on Israel until the Palis are adequately "represented"...

Actually not. Only one party needs to have signed on to the convention, but since in this case both have.

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
• Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
• provisions:
• (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
• (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
• (b) taking of hostages;
• (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
• (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
• (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
• An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
• The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
• The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

End Quote

so lets review

Quote

The four 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers the Holy See and the State of Palestine,

End Quote

Israel also signed onto the geneva conventions as well.

So yeah, they apply

So go try and enforce that in International Court. That's how it would be done.. Who you gonna put on the summons?? It's unenforceable if the other party is a stateless insurgency.. Would be like trying to sue ISIS for the Paris attacks. Doesn't have a legal leg to stand on... Tell me who Israel should sue for violations...

Even the UN wouldn't recognize it as a legal enforcement of Geneva conventions..

The UN ( 1/3 of which are hostile Arab countries ) wouldn't recognize anything Israel did anyway.

I'm not sure where you read a summons into that, or a lawsuit or see a need for courts, the legalities of it all are already well established. What it does is give Israel the legal means to segregate combatants from non combatants. It'd be a unilateral action. There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. Beyond that Israel's only responsible for them to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination.

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.

 

[Phoenall]

Some countries, like France for example, are pushing hard for a two state solution to save Israel from itself as the one state solution looms large on the horizon.

Tell it to the Palestinians as they are the ones who have repeatedly refused to talk peace.

 

[Phoenall]

Its another failed power play as Bibi knows he's the USAs ONLY viable ally in the area.

The USA's only ally because it's one of the FEW countries in the region that has not been attacked by the USA... Gee, some ally! The US doesn't need an ally in the region... They will do what they always do... Don't like a leader, blow him up and leave the remains of the country in Shitville!!

Israel has become the anchor of the middle east.

Israel certainly has become an 'anchor' halting progress in the peace solutions in the M.E... Of course, I would prefer to call Israel the 'wanker' in the M.E... Seems far more fitting!

It's the only thing holding the whole region together.

That one has to rank up there amongst the most stupid comments I have EVER read on this forum!

The sooner the US stops the stupid veto of UNSC Resolutions the better! It does NOT help peace, it does NOT help stabilise the region... Simply delaying the inevitable....

Of course they can stop the veto, just as they can also stop bankrolling the UN leaving the Palestinians with nothing. Then we would see the Palestinians crying as they slowly die from lack of food, health care and money. The UN would be renamed the Islamic nations and would be ran by Saudi.
Or we could just segregate into religions/ideologies and that way the Islamic states would only have 2 votes

 

[Phoenall]

It is disturbing to hear that president Obama is seriously thinking of supporting a UNSC resolution to create, delineate, and set a time frame for a two state solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestine imbroglio by-passing direct negotiations. Unless another UNSC member vetoes the resolution it will put Israel in dire straits with sanctions looming in the future. It doesn't take much forethought to realize the resolution will mandate the 1967 green line as the defacto border meaning that all settlements will be in Palestinian territory. It is further stated that Obama will not move on this until after the election so as not to impact the Democrat candidate's chances. It is ironic that an American president with the middle name of Hussein would be the one to lead an effort to undermine Israel.

'bout time someone set a time limit. I'm all for it.. With the proviso that the Palestinians have to get their act together within that time frame and elect and IMPLEMENT the proper leadership and government for those negotiations to happen.. If they DONT -- you form an Arab-Israeli Panel to IMPOSE a settlement on the Palestinians with the understanding that WHEN they get their act together organizationally, they will be slowly released to independent status...

How generous of you, another way of saying they won't be allowed to gain their independence. Israel won't agree to 1967 two state solution, it wants Jerusalem to be recognized as its capital, it has tens of thousands of settlements all over the West Bank. Will Israel be serious about a solution? Can you show me one statement from the current Israeli government or PM that even remotely suggest that Israel will consider a two state solution and drawing borders for these two states?

Which part of 1967, or should that not read 1949 ceasefire lines or 1967 ceasefire lines.

Jerusalem was never part of the partition, it was the arab muslims that usurped their power and stole it from the UN.

Link naming these tens of thousands, you would struggle to find more than 200 and all built on Jewish owned land.

Can you find one statement from the Palestinians over the last 68 years that even hint at a two state solution or even talks of a two state solution. The present Israeli government is more concerned with another Syria cropping up on its borders so is unwilling to talk with terrorists who can not be trusted.

 

[Phoenall]

...it has tens of thousands of settlements all over the West Bank....

Its hard to take you seriously when you make this type of statement.

Tens of thousands of 'units'. Anyway none you answered the question.

...............
...............

It is disturbing to hear that president Obama is seriously thinking of supporting a UNSC resolution to create, delineate, and set a time frame for a two state solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestine imbroglio by-passing direct negotiations. Unless another UNSC member vetoes the resolution it will put Israel in dire straits with sanctions looming in the future. It doesn't take much forethought to realize the resolution will mandate the 1967 green line as the defacto border meaning that all settlements will be in Palestinian territory. It is further stated that Obama will not move on this until after the election so as not to impact the Democrat candidate's chances. It is ironic that an American president with the middle name of Hussein would be the one to lead an effort to undermine Israel.

'bout time someone set a time limit. I'm all for it.. With the proviso that the Palestinians have to get their act together within that time frame and elect and IMPLEMENT the proper leadership and government for those negotiations to happen.. If they DONT -- you form an Arab-Israeli Panel to IMPOSE a settlement on the Palestinians with the understanding that WHEN they get their act together organizationally, they will be slowly released to independent status...

How generous of you, another way of saying they won't be allowed to gain their independence. Israel won't agree to 1967 two state solution, it wants Jerusalem to be recognized as its capital, it has tens of thousands of settlements all over the West Bank. Will Israel be serious about a solution? Can you show me one statement from the current Israeli government or PM that even remotely suggest that Israel will consider a two state solution and drawing borders for these two states?

Of course I can... Israel released Gaza TOTALLY to PA control before the PA crashed and burned along sectarian fracture lines. They got busy killing each other shortly after Israel FORCIBLY removed the last trace of Jewness from Gaza. Egypt and the EU now recognize the political disaster that Gaza is today. Israel is not stupid enough to make that same mistake twice. EVERYONE needs to see who the LEADERS and NEGOTIATORS of the Palestinians are. If they can't get that straight -- you have no good faith party to sit across from,..

Palestinians BLEW the chance for Autonomy when JORDAN was in complete control of ALL the West Bank. The Palis got their asses tossed from Jordan for leading a tank march on Amman and trying to overthrow the King.. Jordan was so done with them -- the King walked away totally from his claim to the West Bank..
They've made lots of mistakes, lots of enemies, and squandered GREAT opportunities and they are not gonna get there trying to run out the clock for another decade.

To END this stand-off -- it just might take an IMPOSED solution. Ideal Panel would be Israel, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan. That's the neighborhood jack..

As expected, your 'care' for Palestinians is just exonerating yourselves from any responsibility. Deliberately lying about your agenda. Israel's agenda is to annex the West bank, this was the plan since 1917. Israel's agenda is not to make a two state nor one state solution. It's total colonization. And then you wonder why the Palestinians only option is armed struggle.

Israel didn't withdraw from Gaza, it just pulled out a few thousand settlers. It controls the natural gas resources off Gaza's coasts, controls 7 of its 8 borders. Controls what goes in and out of it, and bomb it every summer. What a generous outreach....

As opposed to the near 400,000 settlers residing in the West Bank currently. Israel never had agenda of allowing Palestinian independence, it has agenda of claiming West Bank as Jewish land, and putting Jewish only people in the settlements there.

So you dismissed my request to show me where Netanyahu or his current government even remotely suggested that they seek a two state solution. You oppose any and every kind of solution. And always have. That's the truth.

So you show 3 of these tens of thousands, any chance of the rest



If this was the plan then they would have done so in 1948/1949 when the aqrab muslims invaded. Or in 1967 when they rode into town and cleaned up.

You do realise that total colonisation is a one state solution don't you, and the only party with that as their stated aim is the muslims. Read your koran for the details.

Israel withdrew completely and left gaza to its own devices, so gaza decided that bombing Israel was a good game and set about getting its inhabitants killed.

I see math is not your strong point as gaza only has 3 border Egypt, Israel and the sea. Yes Israel controls what goes in and what comes out and it is all legal. No bombing this summer was there ?

Read the Oslo accords that the Palestinians try and claim are no longer in force while trying to use them against Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

...it has tens of thousands of settlements all over the West Bank....

Its hard to take you seriously when you make this type of statement.

Maybe he meant "tens of thousands of settlers".

There are hundreds of thousands of settlers, not 'tens'.

You claimed settlements, and the settlers are on their own lands if you bother to check. This is why the UN is doing nothing to remove the Jews from their own lands.

 

[Boston1]

Jerusalem will never be divided again. Its a non starter.

The Israeli's have made it clear they will not negotiate on this. Jerusalem is not divisible. It was only divided because of Arab Muslim aggression and once the Ireali's reunited it, its a done deal. No negotiations on that point.

The Golan and the defensive perimeter of the west bank are also not negotiable.

The UN being so outrageously bias against Israel is going to have to deal with realities if it wants to obtain a settlement.

And fast because at any moment Israel could simply apply the Geneva Conventions and be done with it.

The Israeli's will not lower their guard for the UN or the Arab Muslims, for any reason. They are a proud native people and they will not be fooled again.

 

[Challenger]

It is disturbing to hear that president Obama is seriously thinking of supporting a UNSC resolution to create, delineate, and set a time frame for a two state solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestine imbroglio by-passing direct negotiations. Unless another UNSC member vetoes the resolution it will put Israel in dire straits with sanctions looming in the future. It doesn't take much forethought to realize the resolution will mandate the 1967 green line as the defacto border meaning that all settlements will be in Palestinian territory. It is further stated that Obama will not move on this until after the election so as not to impact the Democrat candidate's chances. It is ironic that an American president with the middle name of Hussein would be the one to lead an effort to undermine Israel.

Go president Obama! Better late than never.

 

[Phoenall]

It is disturbing to hear that president Obama is seriously thinking of supporting a UNSC resolution to create, delineate, and set a time frame for a two state solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestine imbroglio by-passing direct negotiations. Unless another UNSC member vetoes the resolution it will put Israel in dire straits with sanctions looming in the future. It doesn't take much forethought to realize the resolution will mandate the 1967 green line as the defacto border meaning that all settlements will be in Palestinian territory. It is further stated that Obama will not move on this until after the election so as not to impact the Democrat candidate's chances. It is ironic that an American president with the middle name of Hussein would be the one to lead an effort to undermine Israel.

Go president Obama! Better late than never.

And this is against all International laws and the UN charter so is a non starter. Unless you want to start Armageddon ?

 

[Phoenall]

...People like yourself see someone different and rather than try and see another member of the circle all they feel is fear and hatred.

What people see is a brutal Zionist repression and occupation of an indigenous population. Perhaps if you weren't such an "uncle Tom", you'd see that.

A pity you did not see the occupation by Jordan and Egypt as being even more aggressive, you have seen the pictures of the way the untermensch were caged in gaza.

 

[Humanity]

It is disturbing to hear that president Obama is seriously thinking of supporting a UNSC resolution to create, delineate, and set a time frame for a two state solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestine imbroglio by-passing direct negotiations. Unless another UNSC member vetoes the resolution it will put Israel in dire straits with sanctions looming in the future. It doesn't take much forethought to realize the resolution will mandate the 1967 green line as the defacto border meaning that all settlements will be in Palestinian territory. It is further stated that Obama will not move on this until after the election so as not to impact the Democrat candidate's chances. It is ironic that an American president with the middle name of Hussein would be the one to lead an effort to undermine Israel.

Go president Obama! Better late than never.

And this is against all International laws and the UN charter so is a non starter. Unless you want to start Armageddon ?

What international law dictates what Obama votes or doesn't vote for?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Some countries, like France for example, are pushing hard for a two state solution to save Israel from itself as the one state solution looms large on the horizon.

Tell it to the Palestinians as they are the ones who have repeatedly refused to talk peace.

The two state solution is not the Palestinian's thing. It has been a foreign idea since 1937. Why should they negotiate inside that framework?

 

[Boston1]

As I recall the topic was UN resolutions and how they might apply to the present situation.

They don't. The present situation is one of war in which case the Geneva Conventions apply

The UN ( 1/3 of which are hostile Arab countries ) wouldn't recognize anything Israel did anyway.

I'm not sure where you read a summons into that, or a lawsuit or see a need for courts, the legalities of it all are already well established. What it does is give Israel the legal means to segregate combatants from non combatants. It'd be a unilateral action. There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. Beyond that Israel's only responsible for them to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination.

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, orfailing 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.

 

[Humanity]

Some countries, like France for example, are pushing hard for a two state solution to save Israel from itself as the one state solution looms large on the horizon.

Tell it to the Palestinians as they are the ones who have repeatedly refused to talk peace.

The two state solution is not the Palestinian's thing. It has been a foreign idea since 1937. Why should they negotiate inside that framework?

The Palestinians working within a two state solution is the best outcome that can happen for both Palestine and Israel...

The sooner BOTH parties recognise this the sooner there will be peace in the region!

 

[montelatici]

The UN ( 1/3 of which are hostile Arab countries ) wouldn't recognize anything Israel did anyway.

There are 22 Arab countries and 193 members of the UN. How does that work out to 1/3? I guess just like the rest of your assertions.