What Would Happen if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan?

[flacaltenn]

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

Please don't call Palis POWs.. That's not the situation. They are best described as refugees since there are FEW nations who would take them IF they wanted to leave.. The US has taken many... I helped one run for a seat in the California Senate.. He wasn't interested in running for office for Palestine -- but eventually would GO BACK if there were any signs that Palis could agree on forming a nation..

 

[Shusha]

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

Or, in the context of this thread, bring Jordan to them. Either way the concept is the same. The reason for the conflict is the essential incompatibility of the two groups. (Though I think it is closer to the truth that it is the inability of the Arab Muslims to accept Jewish national self-determination). The REASON there is still a conflict in this place is that the two groups never got separated like all the other groups did post-WWII (mostly by mass expulsion and population exchange). They need to be separated.

Israel doesn't need the land in Areas A and B. And Israel certainly doesn't want the population.

The big concern, of course, is security. And the question there is whether or not Jordan will support Israel in keeping the region free from extremists.

 

[Boston1]

Oh I'm not calling all of them POWs. At present I'm not sure any are being held as POWs.

I'm suggesting Israel use the laws of war as set down in the Geneva conventions to declare captured enemy combatants, those who aid combatants and those suspected of aiding or engaging in acts against the state exactly as defined by the conventions as POWs and applying the applicable laws which results in segregating legitimate refugees from combatants.

The Arab Muslim controlled UNWRA refuses to do it but international law as set down in the Geneva conventions gives Israel permission if a condition of war exists. Which IMHO it does based again of the conventions definition of a conflict.

Its a solution to all the violence as it results in the removal of the terrorist elements to a neutral third power. And I think the IRC is stuck with them.

Anyway I'm not referring to all of the Arab Muslims in Israel as being POWs. I'm just suggesting that the use of the legal permissions given in the Geneva convention would greatly improve the situation in Israel

The application of the conventions of war also precludes any dependance on Jordan to prevent extremists from continuing their attacks on Israel.

probably should be its own thread but its applicable across the board.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I'm confused.

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..

At one time the administrator was Britain - would that have that make them British? Would they have been expelled to their British "homeland" then?

It may be a mutual decision but in a modern world it is also a humanitarian decision and simply flicking your hand and talking about mass expulsions is not 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".

Agree - I got side tracked. Just not sure how beneficial that would be to Jordan and whether Jordan could manage security.

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..

Agree - but, settlements are a part of the problem as to why there has been no resolution.

 

[Coyote]

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

Or, in the context of this thread, bring Jordan to them. Either way the concept is the same. The reason for the conflict is the essential incompatibility of the two groups. (Though I think it is closer to the truth that it is the inability of the Arab Muslims to accept Jewish national self-determination). The REASON there is still a conflict in this place is that the two groups never got separated like all the other groups did post-WWII (mostly by mass expulsion and population exchange). They need to be separated.

Israel doesn't need the land in Areas A and B. And Israel certainly doesn't want the population.

The big concern, of course, is security. And the question there is whether or not Jordan will support Israel in keeping the region free from extremists.

Those kind of seperations, however, have usually led to bloodbaths and huge numbers of displaced peoples and, they don't always work (ie India/Bangladesh/Pakistan) because people think they know more than they do about the people.

But talk of seperation reminds me of something I read (I'll have to try to find the source). Sharon's policy of complete seperation was one that was intended to reduce attacks from Palestinian terrorists but also had another effect. Where as previously there was a lot more mingling of Palestinians and Jews now there are many Jews who have never met a Palestinian and many Palestinians who have never met a Jew. When that kind of seperation occurs it's easier to believe conspiracy theories and demonize the other as non-people and this is evident. So IS complete seperation the answer?

 

[Coyote]

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..

That's a really interesting thought - I wasn't thinking along those lines but rather that Palestinians would become part of Jordan. That adds a whole new dimension to this and makes it seem like a better alternative than I thought. I wonder how possible it is?

 

[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.

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

Then their country of origin would have to be what ever the country which holds the territory they are from - Israel.

 

[Boston1]

Coyote, et al,

I'm confused.

(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..

At one time the administrator was Britain - would that have that make them British? Would they have been expelled to their British "homeland" then?

It may be a mutual decision but in a modern world it is also a humanitarian decision and simply flicking your hand and talking about mass expulsions is not 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".

Agree - I got side tracked. Just not sure how beneficial that would be to Jordan and whether Jordan could manage security.

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..

Agree - but, settlements are a part of the problem as to why there has been no resolution.

I think Rocco mentioned something about civilian repatriation being to a last place of residence, ( I'll try and find the exact quote ) which brings us back to the refoulment issue.

The thing that seldom gets discussed is the requirement within the UNs own policies that combatants be segregated from refugees or the applications of the Geneva conventions

In any case I don't really hear anyone else but myself arguing for the application of the Geneva conventions. Which doesn't make much sense considering that Israel holds the pali's in the west bank under military law.

I also never heard FLacal say anything about returning POWs to the British because they were the mandating powers appointee to the area.

But no matter how you slice it the Israeli's are within their legal rights to repatriate combatants to a neutral third nation. Which would vastly improve the situation within the west bank and might even mollify any concerns Jordan might have to getting involved.

 

[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

Then their country of origin would have to be what ever the country which holds the territory they are from - Israel.

If you can show that as a legal determination within the Geneva conventions then great but I don't think its there.

Once again the concept of refoulment seems to have some precedence and the issue of a forced migration also comes to mind. But I have to wonder if you realize, I'm talking about POWs rather than civilians as defined within the Geneva conventions.

I think your concern is that under the conventions definitions, just how many of those now considered either civilians or refugees, could be redesignated combatants, given the wide brush of the convention articles.

Which is a reasonable concern, however I doubt every last Arab muslim in the combat zone would qualify.

There'd still some pali's under Israeli control but the number would certainly be significantly reduced and those remaining would have been thoroughly vetted for a lack of involvement, which seems like it would have the obvious effect of bringing peace to the area.

 

[Shusha]

Agree - but, settlements are a part of the problem as to why there has been no resolution.

No. The settlements problem a giant red herring. "Settlements" are not any part of the problem. "Settlements" are just places where Jewish people live. Jewish people living in places is not a problem. Unless you build a narrative MAKING it a problem. (Which the Arab Muslims have).

Settlements are an excuse not to get things done. Settlements are an excuse to demonize Israel. Settlements are an excuse for blatant racism and anti-semitism.

If Arab Muslim "Palestinans" can live and thrive in Israel within a Jewish majority, there is no reason whatsoever that Jewish people can't live and thrive in Palestine within a Muslim majority. There is absolutely nothing about Arab Muslims living in Israel or Jewish people living in Palestine which prevents an end of conflict agreement, in reality.

However, the Arab Muslim Palestinians have MADE it a problem because they say, in effect, "we can't live with these people and we want them ethnically cleansed from here". Israel would never choose this. But since the Palestinians won't give up this idea, a population exchange may be the only viable solution.

 

[RoccoR]

Boston, et al,

That would be:

REPATRIATION AND RETURN TO THE LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE
ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]

I think Rocco mentioned something about civilian repatriation being to a last place of residence, ( I'll try and find the exact quote ) which brings us back to the refoulment issue.

(REFERENCE)

• 
  ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]
  
  The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour, upon the close of hostilities or occupation, to ensure the return of all internees to their last place of residence, or to facilitate their repatriation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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.

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

Then their country of origin would have to be what ever the country which holds the territory they are from - Israel.

If you can show that as a legal determination within the Geneva conventions then great but I don't think its there.

Once again the concept of refoulment seems to have some precedence and the issue of a forced migration also comes to mind. But I have to wonder if you realize, I'm talking about POWs rather than civilians as defined within the Geneva conventions.

I think your concern is that under the conventions definitions, just how many of those now considered either civilians or refugees, could be redesignated combatants, given the wide brush of the convention articles.

Which is a reasonable concern, however I doubt every last Arab muslim in the combat zone would qualify.

There'd still some pali's under Israeli control but the number would certainly be significantly reduced and those remaining would have been thoroughly vetted for a lack of involvement, which seems like it would have the obvious effect of bringing peace to the area.

I think it would be extremely difficult to seperate out combatents from legitimate resistance of an occupation. If there are POW's (and I'm not sure I agree with that designation) it would seem to me that would only apply to those held in jails.

 

[Coyote]

Boston, et al,

That would be:

REPATRIATION AND RETURN TO THE LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE
ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]

I think Rocco mentioned something about civilian repatriation being to a last place of residence, ( I'll try and find the exact quote ) which brings us back to the refoulment issue.

(REFERENCE)

• 
  
  
  • 
    ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]
    
    The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour, upon the close of hostilities or occupation, to ensure the return of all internees to their last place of residence, or to facilitate their repatriation.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see how that can be applied to Palestinians who's last place of residence is in the country they are currently in - in fact, there only place of residence

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Yeah, you would be right. But it is really a matter for hearing.

I think it would be extremely difficult to seperate out combatents from legitimate resistance of an occupation. If there are POW's (and I'm not sure I agree with that designation) it would seem to me that would only apply to those held in jails.

(COMMENT)

The Defense would argue: If they were truly a POW they are charged differently. On the other hand, if they appear to be Protected persons who commit an offense, the Defense will argue for Article 68 treatment.

Either way, there will be an hearing on the matter. Whatever the government says it is, the defense will argue for the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

That is the problem with NIAC conflicts.

Boston, et al,

That would be:

REPATRIATION AND RETURN TO THE LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE
ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]

I think Rocco mentioned something about civilian repatriation being to a last place of residence, ( I'll try and find the exact quote ) which brings us back to the refoulment issue.

(REFERENCE)

• 
  
  • 
    ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]
    
    The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour, upon the close of hostilities or occupation, to ensure the return of all internees to their last place of residence, or to facilitate their repatriation.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see how that can be applied to Palestinians who's last place of residence is in the country they are currently in - in fact, there only place of residence

(COMMENT)

It is the dilemma I was trying to explain to P F Tinmore.

In reality, these types of issues are brought-up at the Armistice meeting, Cease-Fire Arrangements, or the Treaty negotiations. The Geneva Convention Code is only used as the default.

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.

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

Then their country of origin would have to be what ever the country which holds the territory they are from - Israel.

If you can show that as a legal determination within the Geneva conventions then great but I don't think its there.

Once again the concept of refoulment seems to have some precedence and the issue of a forced migration also comes to mind. But I have to wonder if you realize, I'm talking about POWs rather than civilians as defined within the Geneva conventions.

I think your concern is that under the conventions definitions, just how many of those now considered either civilians or refugees, could be redesignated combatants, given the wide brush of the convention articles.

Which is a reasonable concern, however I doubt every last Arab muslim in the combat zone would qualify.

There'd still some pali's under Israeli control but the number would certainly be significantly reduced and those remaining would have been thoroughly vetted for a lack of involvement, which seems like it would have the obvious effect of bringing peace to the area.

I think it would be extremely difficult to seperate out combatents from legitimate resistance of an occupation. If there are POW's (and I'm not sure I agree with that designation) it would seem to me that would only apply to those held in jails.

I dont' see anything in the conventions which gives any special consideration to something termed "legitimate resistance" a combatant is a combatant is a combatant. Which is very different from a protected person.

And POWs can be held in camps segregated in whatever manor the Sovereign powers judiciary deems fit. However he conventions do specify that female prisoners of war be held separate from male prisoners of war.

From what I can see any threat to the state constitutes a forfeiture of protected persons status

 

[Coyote]

Agree - but, settlements are a part of the problem as to why there has been no resolution.

No. The settlements problem a giant red herring. "Settlements" are not any part of the problem. "Settlements" are just places where Jewish people live. Jewish people living in places is not a problem. Unless you build a narrative MAKING it a problem. (Which the Arab Muslims have).

Settlements are an excuse not to get things done. Settlements are an excuse to demonize Israel. Settlements are an excuse for blatant racism and anti-semitism.

No. I don't think so at all and a simple look at a potentential Palestinian map preserving settlements within a swiss-cheese arrangement makes it obvious it's not a red herring if a viable Palestinian state is ever to be achieved.

In their eyes, settlements represent the most potent sign of Israeli occupation (and in the eyes of the vast majority of the international community). They represent an aggressive strategy on Israel's part, to chip away at what is left of the tiny portion of their original territory that remains to create a Palestinian state. In addition, the continuation of settlement growth and expansion is a blatent signal to the Palestinians that Israel is insincere about any sort of commitment to viable two state solution. That is not racism and anti-semitism - playing the racecard like that is nothing more than minimalizing the issue of settlements.

If Arab Muslim "Palestinans" can live and thrive in Israel within a Jewish majority, there is no reason whatsoever that Jewish people can't live and thrive in Palestine within a Muslim majority. There is absolutely nothing about Arab Muslims living in Israel or Jewish people living in Palestine which prevents an end of conflict agreement, in reality.

I agree - however, in the context of the above, the settlements do create a real problem. On the Palestinian side, the "settlers" have been the most aggressive and violent members of Israel in regards to their interactions with the Palestinians and the they are also the ones who are least willing to share communities with Palestinians. From the Israeli side - they would be "abandoning" Israeli's to the Palestinians (assuming the settlements form part of the Palestinian state) - how could they do that? How could they guarantee the security of those people and what could it lead to? An interesting article here that I just found: Will Jews be Able to Live in a Future Palestinian State?

However, the Arab Muslim Palestinians have MADE it a problem because they say, in effect, "we can't live with these people and we want them ethnically cleansed from here". Israel would never choose this. But since the Palestinians won't give up this idea, a population exchange may be the only viable solution.

Israel wouldn't? If Israel annexes the West Bank - they will give citizenship to all the resident Palestinians?

It's interesting though, what I'm finding to read in looking for information - at least as of 2014, this seems to have been a serious consideration:
Why Not Let the Settlers Stay in Palestine? It Might Just Be the Key to a Viable Palestinian State.

Interesting article and food for thought - some settlements would be ceded to Israel in land swaps and some would go to Palestine...hmm

 

[Boston1]

Coyote, et al,

That is the problem with NIAC conflicts.

Boston, et al,

That would be:

REPATRIATION AND RETURN TO THE LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE
ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]

I think Rocco mentioned something about civilian repatriation being to a last place of residence, ( I'll try and find the exact quote ) which brings us back to the refoulment issue.

(REFERENCE)

• 
  
  • 
    ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]
    
    The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour, upon the close of hostilities or occupation, to ensure the return of all internees to their last place of residence, or to facilitate their repatriation.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see how that can be applied to Palestinians who's last place of residence is in the country they are currently in - in fact, there only place of residence

(COMMENT)

It is the dilemma I was trying to explain to P F Tinmore.

In reality, these types of issues are brought-up at the Armistice meeting, Cease-Fire Arrangements, or the Treaty negotiations. The Geneva Convention Code is only used as the default.

Most Respectfully,
R

And I'm thinking this whole thing is one big huge default to the conventions.

I'd think the ICRC would be compelled to act as the neutral third party and accept at least temporarily POWs from either side.

I don't see how Israel can be forced to accept hostiles back into it sovereign territory under a few elements of the law. A Israel is a sovereign nation and can make its own determination as to who it offers passage or citizenship to. All states maintain borders and regulate the inflow of person not identifying as nationals of that state.

In essence this becomes a right of return issue and we've been over that a thousand times.

But what is legal is the expulsion of POWs to a neutral third party.

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

There is no such thing as a "legitimate resistance." It is the consensus of the International Community that international disputes shall be settled by peaceful means; Chapter I, Article 2(3).

I dont' see anything in the conventions which gives any special consideration to something termed "legitimate resistance" a combatant is a combatant is a combatant. Which is very different from a protected person.

And POWs can be held in camps segregated in whatever manor the Sovereign powers judiciary deems fit. However he conventions do specify that female prisoners of war be held separate from male prisoners of war.

From what I can see any threat to the state constitutes a forfeiture of protected persons status

(COMMENT)

A resistance movement is generally thought of as a segment of the civilian community that has banded together to conduct coordinated hostile operations against the Occupation Command in a covert and/or clandestine manner. They are meant to be indistinguishable from the normal, non-Hostile protected persons.

ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
​

Again, there is no such thing as a legitimate resistance movement. That would be the opposing armed force.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Boston1, et al,

There is no such thing as a "legitimate resistance." It is the consensus of the International Community that international disputes shall be settled by peaceful means; Chapter I, Article 2(3).

I dont' see anything in the conventions which gives any special consideration to something termed "legitimate resistance" a combatant is a combatant is a combatant. Which is very different from a protected person.

And POWs can be held in camps segregated in whatever manor the Sovereign powers judiciary deems fit. However he conventions do specify that female prisoners of war be held separate from male prisoners of war.

From what I can see any threat to the state constitutes a forfeiture of protected persons status

(COMMENT)

A resistance movement is generally thought of as a segment of the civilian community that has banded together to conduct coordinated hostile operations against the Occupation Command in a covert and/or clandestine manner. They are meant to be indistinguishable from the normal, non-Hostile protected persons.

ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
​

Again, there is no such thing as a legitimate resistance movement. That would be the opposing armed force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ok...yet, when the Palestinians have attempted "peaceful" resolution by going directly to the UN, Israel has punished them with economic sanctions.