What Would Happen if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan?

[Phoenall]

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

Don't worry your English is a damn sight better than many so called English speakers on here, penny springs to mind

 

[Phoenall]

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

That is correct, you did not mention civilians. This is a Jew hater jumping in with both feet to spread a LIE

 

[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

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

Does this mean you are for the expulsion of Jews from Jewish Palestine to make way for arab muslim extremists and terrorists. Read the mandate of Palestine to see who the land was given to in 1923, and what the qarab muslims got at the same time

 

[dani67]

aris2chat, Roudy, et al,

Well --- I think our friend "aris2chat" is very much on track.

Disengagement: Office of History, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.​

That's a great idea. Take half the West Bank and give the other half to Jordan, and let them sort it out. I'm sure Jordan would be happy for the extra land, since they have about a million Syrian refugees they had to take in recently. The Palestinians would be happy too since they would be ruled by Muslims as opposed to Jews.

Jordan tried to give palestinians citizenship, but that did not work out well and ended up killing some 20,000 or so PLO fighters after black September

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians would be happy --- and I'm not sure that the Jordanians would give it any serious consideration. The Kingdom tried to help the Arab Palestinians once before and were given nothing but disrespect, violent insurrection, and trouble for their efforts.

Why would the Kingdom even consider trusting the people of the West Bank?

Most Respectfully,
R

Once their plan to destroy the Jewish state failed, the Jordanains occupied the West Bank, and according to Palestinian leaders, kept their people in "concentration camp conditions" for 20 years. Which gave rise to Black September in which the Jordanians killed over 20,000 Palestinians.

So of course there is a lot of bad blood between them, however this conflict has always been about religious intolerance and Muslim Arab inability to accept a Jewish state of any sort in the region.

Accept a Jewish State?
They can't even accept each other!

Divide and rule

Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the short story by L. Sprague de Camp, see Divide and Rule (short story). For the collection of novellas by L. Sprague de Camp, see Divide and Rule (collection).

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up

 

[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

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

You seem to think you can if they are Jews, and under INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 the land belongs to the Jews.






PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


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

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

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

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

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

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.

 

[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.
(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

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

WRONG as the evidence shows the arab muslims were in the minority during the Ottoman rule of the area. Then after the defeat of 1916 the arab muslims flooded into Palestine in an attempt at forcing the LoN to change its mind. They came from the surrounding area hoping to steal the land the Jews had made fertile and get some sex slaves. This state of affairs has been going on ever since, and only the terminally stupid would believe that arab girls gave birth to triplets and quads every nine months from the age of 12 till they were 60 years old with no mortalities. This would mean that they had a worlds first and a population of super humans to achieve the population explosion they did. Even the civilised west cant come close to these figures and we have better health and medical care than the third world arabs in Palestine. Want to show how the population increased exponentially every time the arab muslims were defeated, and more Syrian and Egyptian family names entered the register as refugee's.

 

[Phoenall]

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

The mandate and the LoN enacted an International law that granted the Jews the land that is now know as the west bank, gaza and Golan heights. The UN illegally partitioned this land into a possible arab muslim state, once they realised they amended the UN charter to once again grant the Jews the above land. The pro Palestinians/anti Jews always balk when these INTERNATIONAL LAWS are pointed out and deflect away from the reality because they know they have no answers.

 

[Phoenall]

aris2chat, Roudy, et al,

Well --- I think our friend "aris2chat" is very much on track.

Disengagement: Office of History, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.​

That's a great idea. Take half the West Bank and give the other half to Jordan, and let them sort it out. I'm sure Jordan would be happy for the extra land, since they have about a million Syrian refugees they had to take in recently. The Palestinians would be happy too since they would be ruled by Muslims as opposed to Jews.

Jordan tried to give palestinians citizenship, but that did not work out well and ended up killing some 20,000 or so PLO fighters after black September

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians would be happy --- and I'm not sure that the Jordanians would give it any serious consideration. The Kingdom tried to help the Arab Palestinians once before and were given nothing but disrespect, violent insurrection, and trouble for their efforts.

Why would the Kingdom even consider trusting the people of the West Bank?

Most Respectfully,
R

Once their plan to destroy the Jewish state failed, the Jordanains occupied the West Bank, and according to Palestinian leaders, kept their people in "concentration camp conditions" for 20 years. Which gave rise to Black September in which the Jordanians killed over 20,000 Palestinians.

So of course there is a lot of bad blood between them, however this conflict has always been about religious intolerance and Muslim Arab inability to accept a Jewish state of any sort in the region.

Accept a Jewish State?
They can't even accept each other!

Divide and rule

Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the short story by L. Sprague de Camp, see Divide and Rule (short story). For the collection of novellas by L. Sprague de Camp, see Divide and Rule (collection).

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up

Grasping at straws by using a fantasy story to base your agenda on, this makes it 3 now that have been used

 

[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

No

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

No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.

 

[Coyote]

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

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

Does this mean you are for the expulsion of Jews from Jewish Palestine to make way for arab muslim extremists and terrorists. Read the mandate of Palestine to see who the land was given to in 1923, and what the qarab muslims got at the same time

I'm for the expulsion of NOBODY unless they choose to go elsewhere voluntarily.

What are you for?

 

[Coyote]

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

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

You seem to think you can if they are Jews, and under INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 the land belongs to the Jews.

Let's try to stick to the truth here Phoenall - do you think you can manage that? Maybe even without a gratuitous "Jew Hater" non-sequiter?

First item - where have I said anything about expelling any Jews? A link would suffice.

Second - no, it does not. There was no force of law behind that from what I understand and I had to ask because I'm not going to pretend to be any sort of expert on that part of history. So let's consider the situation at hand today which is ultimately what to do to resolve the territorial conflict and, in this thread in particular - should Israel cede to Jordan?

Involuntary civilian expulsion of any kind is inhumane - can we agree on that?

 

[Coyote]

Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

WRONG as the evidence shows the arab muslims were in the minority during the Ottoman rule of the area. Then after the defeat of 1916 the arab muslims flooded into Palestine in an attempt at forcing the LoN to change its mind. They came from the surrounding area hoping to steal the land the Jews had made fertile and get some sex slaves. This state of affairs has been going on ever since, and only the terminally stupid would believe that arab girls gave birth to triplets and quads every nine months from the age of 12 till they were 60 years old with no mortalities. This would mean that they had a worlds first and a population of super humans to achieve the population explosion they did. Even the civilised west cant come close to these figures and we have better health and medical care than the third world arabs in Palestine. Want to show how the population increased exponentially every time the arab muslims were defeated, and more Syrian and Egyptian family names entered the register as refugee's.

Your "evidence" was debunked in another thread.

 

[Coyote]

I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.

I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.

In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities

Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.

Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.

The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.

In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.

You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.

Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.

Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.

I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.

They originated where they are. There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to. That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

The mandate and the LoN enacted an International law that granted the Jews the land that is now know as the west bank, gaza and Golan heights. The UN illegally partitioned this land into a possible arab muslim state, once they realised they amended the UN charter to once again grant the Jews the above land. The pro Palestinians/anti Jews always balk when these INTERNATIONAL LAWS are pointed out and deflect away from the reality because they know they have no answers.

What international "law"? My understanding is there was no force of law there. Maybe we should take this up in the Mandate thread?

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, Phoenall, et al, (Just a POINT of Clarification!)

Don't get twisted up here. This is a mistake a lot of people make.

The mandate and the LoN enacted an International law that granted the Jews the land that is now know as the west bank, gaza and Golan heights. The UN illegally partitioned this land into a possible arab muslim state, once they realised they amended the UN charter to once again grant the Jews the above land. The pro Palestinians/anti Jews always balk when these INTERNATIONAL LAWS are pointed out and deflect away from the reality because they know they have no answers.

What international "law"? My understanding is there was no force of law there. Maybe we should take this up in the Mandate thread?

(COMMENT)

There was no amendment of the Charter to allow anything of the sort.

The UN did not illegally partition anything. The UN made an offer to for the Arabs and the Jews based on the logic and recommendations put forth by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP).

The Mandate is a "Directive" from the "League of Nations" to the "Assigned Mandatory" as determined by the "Allied Powers" --- with the "Allied Powers" having decided the context of the Mandate. You will notice that the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine says (over and over again) the phrase: "Whereas the Principle Allied Powers have agreed," --- and not the Council of the League of Nations. Now look at this last bit of language:

"Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;

Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:
​

The Allied Powers set-up the Mandate and had it approved by the Council. The Mandatory exercises the authority on behalf of the "Council."

The Mandate slipped into the UN Trusteeship Program in April 1946 (in accordance with Article 28 of the Mandate and Article 77 of the Charter). But the terms stayed the same. If the Administrator (the successor government to the UK) wants to do something outside that Mandate as was NOT previously agreed to by the League Membership (Trustee Programs as the successor), Then it shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations (the UN General Assembly as the successor body).

• References:

• Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Mandate Preamble.
• Articles 28 of the Mandate
• Chapter XII of the UN Charter

In November 1947, the UN General Assembly (as the successor body to the Council) voted on and approved the "partition plan" in the form of Resolution 181(II). All in accordance with the agreed upon procedures involving the Allied Powers, and the Council as passed on to the Mandatory. The UN General Assembly adoption of the 1947 Resolution fulfills the requirement within the Mandate (agreed upon by the parties) to "explicitly defined" by the body if it was not previously agreed to.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.

I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC

Its in the conventions

Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.

Quote

• Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
• Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
• Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
• Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.

 

[Coyote]

If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.

I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC

Its in the conventions

Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.

Quote

• Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
• Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
• Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
• Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.

So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think it would be a game-changer. What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan? What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?

How would that change or affect the conflict?

Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.

Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty. Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy? Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?

And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?

What does everyone think will happen?

Interesting thought. Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?

But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?

Yes they could rely on Jordan to provide the services and security that is necessary for incubating a Pali state. That's why I've said for ages that a 2 state solution involves Israel working with Jordan and Egypt and other volunteer Arab states. It is the most direct path to eventual autonomy for Palestine.

Israel never got a chance to really negotiate with Jordan over the occupied West Bank, because by that time, the King was looking for ways to rid himself of the Palestinians. And as MOST of the posters have commented, the Palis burned that bridge when they ATTACKED their former host instead of negotiating for real autonomy with King Hussein...

It would be a monumentally BRAVE move for him to step forward now and take part in a reasonable solution..

 

[Boston1]

If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.

I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC

Its in the conventions

Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.

Quote

• Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
• Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
• Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
• Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.

So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.

I'm not sure if you can claim a nonexistent country as your country of origin, however I don't think it really matters as its not up to the individual POW to make this decision. The sovereign power is within its legal boundaries to simply turn a POW over to the default neutral third party.

One thing I don't see in the conventions is where Israel is responsible to provide a country to POWs so again a fourth Arab state within the mandated area is not only unnecessary but uncalled for

Although I'm still searching for the specific article that designated the IRC as the default third party. I stumbled on it once while I was looking for something else but damn if I can find it when I need it. Go figure.

Rocco brought up the issues of forced repatriation vs refoulment so I think you'd do better arguing that issue than claiming a nonexistent country and the country of origin.

I've been reading up on that one as well, most of this stuff I learned in middle east studies but it was a while ago and I'm way rusty.

There's also a clause about repatriation to a neutral nation that negates the forced repatriation argument. I'll dig that up when I have time but yeah.

The conventions clearly give Israel the rights as the sovereign power to detain and remove prisoners of war from the war zone and to a neutral third party

 

[flacaltenn]

Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.

It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.

I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.

In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible

It would be ethnic cleansing.

Absolutely not. It would be the somewhat less than timely application of international law. IMHO this should have been done immediately after each flare up of Arab violence within the Israeli controlled mandate area.

Also, I think its important to note that the ONLY criteria for repatriation would be prisoner of war status, which is a determination made based on actions not ethnicity.

Unless you want to consider country of origin an ethnic instead of national designation. Which I'm not sure is accurate. I can be say, of Italian descent but a citizen of the US. In which case my country of origin is the US.

The country of origin is whatever country currently controls the land they occupy.

I don't think that position is defensible within international law. Simply because a combatant has been captured and detained within a given area does not make that given area their country of origin.

That is not the logic I'm using for their country of origin.

A prisoner of wars country of origin isn't even something that the country of the detaining state is required to determine. I'm pretty sure thats up to the Neutral third party.

The detaining state is only responsible for certain aspects of the care and wellbeing of the detainee and for proper judicial treatment.

Beyond that I dont' think they are responsible for much other than repatriation of prisoners of war within roughly one year after the cessation of hostilities. I'm pretty sure repatriation can include being turned over to a neutral third party. IE the IRC.

I see nothing which supports your view within the conventions.

If a person has resided for centuries in an area that is where he originates - not some foreign country.

But before Israel won the West Bank in a military defense -- they WERE being incorporated as Jordanians. Even moved to the point where they had representation in the Jordanian Govt -- before they screwed that situation beyond repair.. They have never ORGANIZED as a nation. That's their problem.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

(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

No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.

You can't both take the stand that "they've lived there for ages" and ignore that the PREVIOUS owner and admin of that land was Jordan. Merely living on the land doesn't give you civil rights, legal process or citizenship of any nation.. That's a MUTUAL decision..

The OP plan is NOT to expel them to Jordan -- but keep them on the same land they've living on for over 50 years. WITH the eventual transition of that land to an autonomous Palestine. Jordan's payout would be to become their gateway to growth and commerce.. Essentially bootstrapping BOTH the economies of Jordan AND "palestine".

With the help of Arab partners, Israel MIGHT consider moving some of their settlements as they did in Gaza. But WITHOUT partners to help the Palestinians build a govt/nation --- they would be IDIOTS to fall for that trip again..