What Would Happen if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan?

[Boston1]

How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?

If a civilian within the area of the conflict engages in hostile acts, assists in hostile acts or is suspected of assisting or engaging in hostile acts they forfeit their right as protected persons and become combatants, as such they maybe detained under the Geneva conventions as prisoners of war.

Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.

Also prisoners of war may be turned over to a neutral third party.

Quote

• Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
• Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.
• No sick or injured prisoner of war who is eligible for repatriation under the first paragraph of this Article, may be repatriated against his will during hostilities.
• Art 110. The following shall be repatriated direct:
• (1) Incurably wounded and sick whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.
• (2) Wounded and sick who, according to medical opinion, are not likely to recover within one year, whose condition requires treatment and whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.
• (3) Wounded and sick who have recovered, but whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely and permanently diminished.
• The following may be accommodated in a neutral country:
• (1) Wounded and sick whose recovery may be expected within one year of the date of the wound or the beginning of the illness, if treatment in a neutral country might increase the prospects of a more certain and speedy recovery.
• (2) Prisoners of war whose mental or physical health, according to medical opinion, is seriously threatened by continued captivity, but whose accommodation in a neutral country might remove such a threat.
• The conditions which prisoners of war accommodated in a neutral country must fulfil in order to permit their repatriation shall be fixed, as shall likewise their status, by agreement between the Powers concerned. In general, prisoners of war who have been accommodated in a neutral country, and who belong to the following categories, should be repatriated:
• (1) Those whose state of health has deteriorated so as to fulfil the condition laid down for direct repatriation;
• (2) Those whose mental or physical powers remain, even after treatment, considerably impaired.
• If no special agreements are concluded between the Parties to the conflict concerned, to determine the cases of disablement or sickness entailing direct repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, such cases shall be settled in accordance with the principles laid down in the Model Agreement concerning direct repatriation and accommodation in neutral countries of wounded and sick prisoners of war and in the Regulations concerning Mixed Medical Commissions annexed to the present Convention.
• Art 111. The Detaining Power, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend, and a neutral Power agreed upon by these two Powers, shall endeavour to conclude agreements which will enable prisoners of war to be interned in the territory of the said neutral Power until the close of hostilities.
• Art 112. Upon the outbreak of hostilities, Mixed Medical Commissions shall be appointed to examine sick and wounded prisoners of war, and to make all appropriate decisions regarding them. The appointment, duties and functioning of these Commissions shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Regulations annexed to the present Convention.
• However, prisoners of war who, in the opinion of the medical authorities of the Detaining Power, are manifestly seriously injured or seriously sick, may be repatriated without having to be examined by a Mixed Medical Commission.

End Quote

I guess I'm guilty about not really caring much about repatriation as long as the Arab combatants can be legally removed to a third party country. Refoulment is an interesting issue and one superseded IMHO by the issue of states rights. Israel is IMHO again under no obligation to accept former combatants into its sovereign territory

If a POW gets so much as a hang nail thats not self inflicted they can be removed to a neutral third country

Quote

Art 114. Prisoners of war who meet with accidents shall, unless the injury is self-inflicted, have the benefit of the provisions of this Convention as regards repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, Boston1, et al,

Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO). But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible. When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation." thousands were sent to their deaths.

How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?

(COMMENT)

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian. There are plenty of video's showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms. The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.

Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps. This created artificial refugee problems. When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

Its not a requirement while hostilities are ongoing. But from what I can see upon the cessation of hostilities repatriation is suggested within one year.

But I'm curious about this concept of forced repatriation. I wasn't aware a POW could insist on remaining a POW.

It seems to me the host nation can decide within its own judiciary the status of POWs; in which case its not up to the POW to decide where he is to be interned

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, Boston1, et al,

Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO). But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible. When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation." thousands were sent to their deaths.

How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?

(COMMENT)

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian. There are plenty of video's showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms. The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.

Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps. This created artificial refugee problems. When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?

 

[Boston1]

No

I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.

Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.

Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.

Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.

The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status

 

[Coyote]

No

I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.

Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.

Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.

Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.

The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status

This is of course assuming Israel decides to annex the entire territory for itself? So how are you going to sort out 4.4 million people? And, since Jordan won't take them - then what? They aren't Jordanian citizens.

 

[Indeependent]

No

I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.

Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.

Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.

Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.

The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status

This is of course assuming Israel decides to annex the entire territory for itself? So how are you going to sort out 4.4 million people? And, since Jordan won't take them - then what? They aren't Jordanian citizens.

If Jordan could attack Israel, they would have.
Jordan takes their Jordanians...problem solved.
I know bleeding hearts won't like it.

 

[Boston1]

No

I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.

Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.

Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.

Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.

The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status

This is of course assuming Israel decides to annex the entire territory for itself? So how are you going to sort out 4.4 million people? And, since Jordan won't take them - then what? They aren't Jordanian citizens.

Not at all, it has nothing to do with annexation. Thats a whole other issue. This issue is regarding POWs.

And your right, how are we going to sort out three or four generations of mostly combatants from whatever legitimate refugees might exist. The UN has made it clear its a patrilineal system. So if its predominantly men who are combatants then identifying the fathers of the refugees and determining their status becomes key.

But thats a whole other issue and not really on topic.

What happens if you ceed land to the palestinians is you must then consider who among the palestinians are legitimate refugees. Thats what I'm really talking about

That and who ceed s land, IMHO it shouldn't be the Israeli's who are responsible for providing land to any fourth state within the mandate area. It should be the Arabs

 

[Coyote]

No

I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.

Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.

Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.

Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.

The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status

This is of course assuming Israel decides to annex the entire territory for itself? So how are you going to sort out 4.4 million people? And, since Jordan won't take them - then what? They aren't Jordanian citizens.

Not at all, it has nothing to do with annexation. Thats a whole other issue. This issue is regarding POWs.

And your right, how are we going to sort out three or four generations of mostly combatants from whatever legitimate refugees might exist. The UN has made it clear its a patrilineal system. So if its predominantly men who are combatants then identifying the fathers of the refugees and determining their status becomes key.

But thats a whole other issue and not really on topic.

What happens if you ceed land to the palestinians is you must then consider who among the palestinians are legitimate refugees. Thats what I'm really talking about

That and who ceed s land, IMHO it shouldn't be the Israeli's who are responsible for providing land to any fourth state within the mandate area. It should be the Arabs

They are not all refugees or combatents - a good many are simply people who have lived there for centuries. Unless you are talking about those in refugee camps.

 

[Shusha]

So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?

Coyote,

Would you say that expulsion of racial, ethnic, cultural or political groups is morally wrong? On the one hand you argue quite strongly against the expulsion of Palestinians, but seem to have no issue with the expulsion of Jews/Israelis from territory which will eventually be Palestinian. I may be misreading you. Would you clarify?

Is it a matter of choice? As in you are perfectly okay with exchanging populations if the individuals have a choice. Or is there something else going on here that I am missing?

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

I'm confused.

Coyote, Boston1, et al,

Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO). But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible. When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation." thousands were sent to their deaths.

How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?

(COMMENT)

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian. There are plenty of video's showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms. The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.

Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps. This created artificial refugee problems. When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?

(COMMENT)

So where did you get that from?

I don't think I said that at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I'm confused.

Coyote, Boston1, et al,

Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO). But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible. When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation." thousands were sent to their deaths.

How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?

(COMMENT)

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian. There are plenty of video's showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms. The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.

Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps. This created artificial refugee problems. When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?

(COMMENT)

So where did you get that from?

I don't think I said that at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

No...you're right. It's what I'm getting from Boston. Apologies

 

[Coyote]

So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?

Coyote,

Would you say that expulsion of racial, ethnic, cultural or political groups is morally wrong?

Absolutely.

On the one hand you argue quite strongly against the expulsion of Palestinians, but seem to have no issue with the expulsion of Jews/Israelis from territory which will eventually be Palestinian. I may be misreading you. Would you clarify?

You are misreading me. I do not think Jews should be expelled either.

Is it a matter of choice? As in you are perfectly okay with exchanging populations if the individuals have a choice. Or is there something else going on here that I am missing?

If individuals choose to go to one or the other countries - that's not expulsion, it's a choice they make.

 

[Boston1]

No

I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.

Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.

Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.

Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.

The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status

This is of course assuming Israel decides to annex the entire territory for itself? So how are you going to sort out 4.4 million people? And, since Jordan won't take them - then what? They aren't Jordanian citizens.

Not at all, it has nothing to do with annexation. Thats a whole other issue. This issue is regarding POWs.

And your right, how are we going to sort out three or four generations of mostly combatants from whatever legitimate refugees might exist. The UN has made it clear its a patrilineal system. So if its predominantly men who are combatants then identifying the fathers of the refugees and determining their status becomes key.

But thats a whole other issue and not really on topic.

What happens if you ceed land to the palestinians is you must then consider who among the palestinians are legitimate refugees. Thats what I'm really talking about

That and who ceed s land, IMHO it shouldn't be the Israeli's who are responsible for providing land to any fourth state within the mandate area. It should be the Arabs

They are not all refugees or jk - a good many are simply people who have lived there for centuries. Unless you are talking about those in refugee camps.

You know I think you are right about that in so far as to say their might be three designations

Refugees
Civilians and
POWs

So I stand corrected

But regardless the Geneva conventions allow a sovereign power to make those designations through the judiciary of the sovereign power.

AND whats really interesting is that the UN definition of a palestinian refugee is based on a patrilinial affiliation.

• So considering that most men within the original so called refugee population were actually combatants how many of the descendants were actuall'[;plpiok.lo.'

OK I'm
calling
drimlinterferance


I love raccoons <---- drunken friend

 

[Shusha]

If individuals choose to go to one or the other countries - that's not expulsion, it's a choice they make.

How do you feel if it is a somewhat forced choice? Such as "renounce your Israeli citizenship or leave?" Or "renounce your Palestinian citizenship or leave"?

 

[Boston1]

Yeah, I'm at the local pub having some fun with friends and one of my more drunken female friends just wasn't going to get off my computer so yeah.

Anyway

determining who is actually legitimate refugee given that the UNWRA ( staffed almost entirely by Arab Muslims ) refused to segregate refugees from combatnats as specified within the UN charter is quite problematic.

But even if applied today the Geneva conventions allow Israel to make such declarations and repatriate combatants to neutral third countires

 

[Boston1]

As I reread all I can't help but notice how bad my spelling and grammar is. My most humble apologies, English isn't my first language and I find it most difficult.

I'm working on it, but yeah, my appologies to those grammar and spelling Nazi's who might be trying to follow along

 

[Boston1]

Coyote, et al,

I'm confused.

Coyote, Boston1, et al,

Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO). But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible. When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation." thousands were sent to their deaths.

How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?

(COMMENT)

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian. There are plenty of video's showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms. The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.

Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps. This created artificial refugee problems. When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?

(COMMENT)

So where did you get that from?

I don't think I said that at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

No...you're right. It's what I'm getting from Boston. Apologies

No

Its what you are getting from yourself. What I said had nothing to do with civilians

 

[Phoenall]

The Revisionist sites will simply keep pushing Israel's "Borders" west until Israel no longer exists.

So we must push back and keep stating INTERNATIONAL LAW that delineates what is actually Jewish land and when it was granted for the Jewish NATIONal home

 

[Phoenall]

Boston1, et al,

Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law." Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics. The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:

A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem
(Downloadable at this link.)​

"If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist." (Gamal Abdel Nasser)

"Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."

Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.

All within established international law of course.
Throw the bums out
And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.

(COMMENT)

It is about moral and ethical mind sets.

The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel. This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea that the Arab states would use the refugees as weapons really wasn't considered when any of the various legal instruments were written that govern this conflict. It goes against anything the west considered morally or ethically possible. Its the culture clash, we value life, they value death. When was the last time you ever heard about an Israeli suicide bomber ?

This is one of many reasons I believe its the more ethical thing to do, expel the Arab Muslim colonists so the native peoples can live in peace.

Give the two state solution a chance. Jordan and Israel.

There is ample support for the treatment of refugees who participate in hostile acts against the host nation within the Geneva conventions to justify expelling the vast majority of Arab Muslims from Israeli controlled areas.

Its kinda a no brainer actually as the provisions for the treatment of combatants is also so clearly laid out in the conventions.

But the idea of ceding one more inch of Israel to the Arab Muslim colonists is just irresponsible in the extreme.

Israel cannot afford to be complacent

That is the same concept that was envisioned in 1923 by the LoN and the mandate of Palestine. The arab muslims did not like the idea of losing one inch of land so started a war and terrorism to change the minds of the lands sovereign rulers. The LoN should have withdrawn the grants to the arab muslims and said that they would garrison the M.E and tax it out of existence if that is what the arab muslims wanted.