What Would Happen if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan?

[Phoenall]

No country has borders like that. The reason the Palestinians THINK they have borders like that is because they can't stomach the idea of living next to Jews. If they could stomach the idea of living next to Jews we could draw real borders. You know, like the ones in every other country in the world where we don't count every house which is lived in by "others" as belonging to a different country.

They've lived next to Jews for thousands of years and had no problem with their neighbors. It wasn't until the Zionist migration did you have all the violence erupt in that area.

BULLSHIT the arab muslims have been attacking the Jews since mo'mad made it a command to do so back in 635 C.E. How many times have you had the massacres posted on here, and still you deny that they happened because it would burst your bubble to do so.
Try reading about the history of islam and how it is steeped in violence and mass murder every where the muslims go

 

[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.

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?

When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.

There is force of law as it was by International agreement that the sovereign owners would grant titke of the land to the Jews for their NATIONal home. The same international law also granted arab muslims land in the form of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Egypt. So they must also be judged on the same merits by you.

NO why should they. Would Jordan cede land to Israel ?

Not when you support that action by muslims the world over, and this is shown by your support for muslims. You do know that since Israel came into existence that islam has managed to expel over 50 million people from their homes by violent means, and here you are complaining about illegal squatters being evicted from land that was never theirs in the first place.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

WAS IT or was it just ignored because it shows the arab muslims have no legal right to the land. Explain how with a pool of only 100,000 women of child bearing age the muslims managed to increase their population by over 30% every year, with no recorded infant deaths in a 15 year period ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Which has never been proven to be the case as before 1967 their country of origin was Jordan which succeeded Syria. So which country are they citizens of prior to 1988 when Palestine was finally invented by the aran muslim terrorists.

See how history and facts show that you don't have a clue as to the reality in the M.E. as there was no Palestinian national movement prior to the declaration of 1988. What there was instead was a movement to destroy Israel and make it part of Jordan and Egypt

 

[Phoenall]

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?

If it means the safety and security of the inhabitants then it is the only answer. Trying to get the Palestinians to agree to meet with Israel is by itself an impossible task. While the palestinian leaders cling to the 3 no's then how can any intelligent person expect Israel to accede to their demands. Look at the starting point from the Palestinians every time a third party has broached the subject of peace talks. The same old demands are trotted out because the Palestinians know that they will not be met or even discussed and the talks will fall through before they start. There is no legal right of return no matter what UN resolution is trotted out saying there is. There is no pre 1967 borders no matter what islamonazi document is submitted in evidence and there is no proof of Palestinian ownership of any land irrespective of how many rusty keys are shown. When the muslims in the US do the same things and shut themselves away, separate themselves from the rest of society and plot to take over then you will realise that you have been wrong all these years. And that yes it is the muslims to blame for the problems and always has been.

 

[Humanity]

When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.

I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."

I would be very interested in seeing links to those!

 

[Phoenall]

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.

NO as Israel does not hold the territory they are just occupiers. Why not say it is Jordan's problem as they are the ones that last held the territory. Or even Turkey under the Ottomans who held the territory, even America as the senior member of the UN.
If you insist on it being Israel then they must be allowed to act in accordance with the Geneva conventions and IHL in dealing with terrorists and fifth columnists and be allowed to expel them as undesirable enemy aliens

 

[Phoenall]

When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.

I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."

I would be very interested in seeing links to those!

Of course you haven't, you suffer from selective reading.

So you have not seen the many posts by billo demanding the Jews ( Zionists) be kicked out of Israel to make way fro the arab muslims. Or the many posts by penny that demands the Jews be kicked out of the US so that she can gloat over having been part of the " final solution "

You really are an ignorant prick aren't you, or is it selective ignorance on your part.

 

[Humanity]

When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.

I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."

I would be very interested in seeing links to those!

Of course you haven't, you suffer from selective reading.

So you have not seen the many posts by billo demanding the Jews ( Zionists) be kicked out of Israel to make way fro the arab muslims. Or the many posts by penny that demands the Jews be kicked out of the US so that she can gloat over having been part of the " final solution "

You really are an ignorant prick aren't you, or is it selective ignorance on your part.

Post a link to what you claim Phoney...

Why would ANYONE just take your word for it?

 

[Boston1]

Billo_Really

If places-where-large-communities-of-"others"-live grants sovereignty then large sections of the US, Europe and Argentina would be part of Israel as well. Large sections of major cities like Toronto, Vancouver and San Fransisco would be Indian, or Korean, or Chinese or Japanese.

"Swiss-cheesing" a state only happens when the host State can't conceive of hosting any "others".

There is no wall around Chinatown or Harlem. Or Little Cambodia. And they're certainly not treated as China's, Africa's or Cambodia's sovereign territory. But it is worth noting, that Indian Reservations are treated as sovereign native American territory.

If the US can do it for its indigenous population, why can't Israel?

WOW

Just WOW

I'm not sure I've met a less informed more overemotional view in a very long time. Likely since my college days in middle eastern studies when a couple pro palestinians showed up to protest our class but refused to engage in any form of conversation; even though there was a fairly well rounded group from various middle eastern countries already in many of the classes, who tried to engage them.

As I'm reading along i'm just not seeing a shred of substance Billo,

Most of us provide citations or references when presenting our arguments.

 

[Phoenall]

When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.

I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."

I would be very interested in seeing links to those!

Of course you haven't, you suffer from selective reading.

So you have not seen the many posts by billo demanding the Jews ( Zionists) be kicked out of Israel to make way fro the arab muslims. Or the many posts by penny that demands the Jews be kicked out of the US so that she can gloat over having been part of the " final solution "

You really are an ignorant prick aren't you, or is it selective ignorance on your part.

Post a link to what you claim Phoney...

Why would ANYONE just take your word for it?

Because you have seen the posts and have chosen to ignore them, so posting links would do no good as you would just ignore them all over again. Just as you ignore the links showing that Israel is not in breach of International laws, and still you claim they are.

 

[Humanity]

When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.

I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."

I would be very interested in seeing links to those!

Of course you haven't, you suffer from selective reading.

So you have not seen the many posts by billo demanding the Jews ( Zionists) be kicked out of Israel to make way fro the arab muslims. Or the many posts by penny that demands the Jews be kicked out of the US so that she can gloat over having been part of the " final solution "

You really are an ignorant prick aren't you, or is it selective ignorance on your part.

Post a link to what you claim Phoney...

Why would ANYONE just take your word for it?

Because you have seen the posts and have chosen to ignore them, so posting links would do no good as you would just ignore them all over again. Just as you ignore the links showing that Israel is not in breach of International laws, and still you claim they are.

No Phoney...

You just make this shit up all the time.... Why do you think everyone calls you Phoney!

Support your comments or shut the **** up ...

Go on, just one will do...

One that states... "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."

 

[Boston1]

Pretty sure the subject is "what would happen if Israel cedes more land to the Arab Muslims".

Answer

Nothing would change. Except Israel would have less land and the terrorists would have more.

Argo its pointless to cede more land. The appropriate solution is to throw out the terrorist infiltrated UNWRA and use aid as a carrot to draw the Arab Muslims out of their militarized so called refugee camps and into determination centers were they can be legally classified as either combatants, those who've aided combatants or those suspected of being or aiding combatants vs civilians or legitimate refugees. And deal with them exactly as the Geneva conventions dictates they be dealt with.

But ceding more land to the Arab Muslims is a ridiculous suggestion.

Not one more inch

 

[Humanity]

Pretty sure the subject is "what would happen if Israel cedes more land to the Arab Muslims".

OFF TOPIC...

I would suggest that the OP knew what he/she was writing!

 

[Boston1]

I would suggest the petty squabbling isn't on topic

I'd further suggest that ceding land to terrorist is the worst of all possible options.

The terrorists should be removed from the equation militarily and whatever of the Arab Muslim population remains can negotiate their unconditional surrender

 

[Humanity]

I would suggest the petty squabbling isn't on topic

I'd further suggest that ceding land to terrorist is the worst of all possible options.

The terrorists should be removed from the equation militarily and whatever of the Arab Muslim population remains can negotiate their unconditional surrender

I would suggest you follow your own advice on both counts of being "off topic" and "petty squabbling"...

So, Jordanians are terrorists now or is it just that you are an Islamophobic racist?

 

[Coyote]

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?

It really is the only way to get a nation state for Palestine. These folks are in the same position they were during the British Mandate. It was noted then that the "palestinians" were not even CLOSE to being capable of self-rule. And some kind of "protectorate" would be required to transition them to statehood. Not a thing has changed. Except that the Palis blew the opportunity while Jordan was hosting them, and have blown away every attempt at electing representation leading to statehood.

The world just doesn't recognize unorganized indigenous populations for statehood.

Israel's error is letting this go on WAY too long. 50 year occupations are immoral and destructive. Israel's expectation always was that the Palis would get their act together and select responsible leadership. And barring that -- Israel doesn't want to be their MENTOR.. So --- some other nation(s) need to step up and volunteer. Preferably a neighbor or two. It's just obvious..

In parent language -- they need a strong talking to about insisting on getting Haifa back.. Or returning to Haifa as non-Israeli citizens. They cannot waste another 50 years. NOBODY has that much patience.

Agree with much of that.
I think though, that Israel also has a desire to keep some of the land and that has probably stalled the process as well.

50 years after the 67 war when Israel acquired that territory. Life goes on. See my post above.

And after the "Gaza experience" of dragging Israeli settlers kicking and screaming totally out of Gaza to do a clean handover to "palestinian government" ---- that mistake is not likely to get repeated..

IN FACT -- when Israel launched Gaza on a path to autonomy -- they were also preparing to launch a few northern sections of the West Bank into autonomy with FURTHER settler evictions.. But the Gaza deal died after only MONTHS when the PA was forced into elections and crashed and burned.

Gazans fleeing into Jordan after the '67 war are TODAY treated as garbage compared to the original Palestinian influx in '48. And if sitting on your ass being denied rights in a Jordanian camp isn't enough to make a "Zionist" nationalist out of you --- there's not a lot of hope for their cause. They just see no freaking USE for organization and government and forming a real nation..

The Gaza experience would not have happened if Israel hadn't built settlements on occupied territory. That's part of the problem that can't be ignored - they build settlements on Occupied Territory and impedes efforts towards peace.

 

[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?

The removal of terrorists, fifth columnists and other violent groups from any land they are not prepared to live in peacefully. there should be an international task force set up for just this problem that will go to where there are uprisings like those of the Palestinians and to quell the violence by arresting the front runners and then firing non lethal rounds at the activists. If they face lethal fire then they will respond in kind and have orders to shoot first ask questions later. If we had this in place now gaza would be a bombed out city inhabited by ghosts, along with Syria, Iraq and many other Islamic third world nations

Sounds like expulsion. How would determine "fifth columnists" - all Pali's?

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

It really is the only way to get a nation state for Palestine. These folks are in the same position they were during the British Mandate. It was noted then that the "palestinians" were not even CLOSE to being capable of self-rule. And some kind of "protectorate" would be required to transition them to statehood. Not a thing has changed. Except that the Palis blew the opportunity while Jordan was hosting them, and have blown away every attempt at electing representation leading to statehood.

The world just doesn't recognize unorganized indigenous populations for statehood.

Israel's error is letting this go on WAY too long. 50 year occupations are immoral and destructive. Israel's expectation always was that the Palis would get their act together and select responsible leadership. And barring that -- Israel doesn't want to be their MENTOR.. So --- some other nation(s) need to step up and volunteer. Preferably a neighbor or two. It's just obvious..

In parent language -- they need a strong talking to about insisting on getting Haifa back.. Or returning to Haifa as non-Israeli citizens. They cannot waste another 50 years. NOBODY has that much patience.

Agree with much of that.
I think though, that Israel also has a desire to keep some of the land and that has probably stalled the process as well.

50 years after the 67 war when Israel acquired that territory. Life goes on. See my post above.

And after the "Gaza experience" of dragging Israeli settlers kicking and screaming totally out of Gaza to do a clean handover to "palestinian government" ---- that mistake is not likely to get repeated..

IN FACT -- when Israel launched Gaza on a path to autonomy -- they were also preparing to launch a few northern sections of the West Bank into autonomy with FURTHER settler evictions.. But the Gaza deal died after only MONTHS when the PA was forced into elections and crashed and burned.

Gazans fleeing into Jordan after the '67 war are TODAY treated as garbage compared to the original Palestinian influx in '48. And if sitting on your ass being denied rights in a Jordanian camp isn't enough to make a "Zionist" nationalist out of you --- there's not a lot of hope for their cause. They just see no freaking USE for organization and government and forming a real nation..

The Gaza experience would not have happened if Israel hadn't built settlements on occupied territory. That's part of the problem that can't be ignored - they build settlements on Occupied Territory and impedes efforts towards peace.

I'm trying to ignore all the flag-waving and "noise" on this thread -- maybe moderation needs to wake up..

But Israel did the right thing and disassembled EVERY trace of Israeli life in Gaza before they turned it over to the PA.. That's the important part. And look how it turned out.

Not to mention the Palis wasted a lot of party time desecrating Synagogues in Gaza rather than focusing on running the state..

 

[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.

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?

When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.

Where? A link to said support will suffice.

There is force of law as it was by International agreement that the sovereign owners would grant titke of the land to the Jews for their NATIONal home. The same international law also granted arab muslims land in the form of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Egypt. So they must also be judged on the same merits by you.

NO why should they. Would Jordan cede land to Israel ?

Not when you support that action by muslims the world over, and this is shown by your support for muslims. You do know that since Israel came into existence that islam has managed to expel over 50 million people from their homes by violent means, and here you are complaining about illegal squatters being evicted from land that was never theirs in the first place.

What international agreement? My understanding, based on the discussion in the Mandate thread is that no promises were specifically made to either the Arabs or the Jews nor was it binding as a force of law. I'm defering to the expertise of others becuase it's very complicated.

Let's clarify - you DO support mass expulsion of civilians?