# Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions



## Boston1 (Mar 14, 2016)

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go. 

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention


Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
III Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.


Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote


Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
(a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
(b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 14, 2016)

Well, that would be great,  since roughly half the people now in the West Bank descend from people that 2 to 4 generations ago were the native inhabitants of what now is called Israel, repatriation the native territory of their ancestors would be an excellent move. Now if the Jews in Israel could be repatriated to the native territories of their ancestors 2 to 4 generations ago, the problem would be solved.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 14, 2016)

Sounds like another Hasbara lie. ( PS since we're making up words, hasbara now means Arab Muslim propaganda )







Looks like you forgot all about the second Arab colonial period which brought the vast majority of Arabs Muslims into the mandate area.

No repatriation does not mean that people stay in the host nation. It means that combatants are led to the border and shown the door. The host nation isn't responsible for where they go, just that they go and are no longer held as POWs.

Lets try and play with the facts on this one and leave the hasbara lies elsewhere.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 14, 2016)

Well, fake Hasbara graphs without sources do not trump fact from source documentation.

*"UNITED
NATIONS
A*






*General Assembly*













 A/364
3 September 1947
*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF 
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*


*SUPPLEMENT No. 11*



*UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE*



*REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*

*VOLUME 1*

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. "*

*https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3*


----------



## Coyote (Mar 14, 2016)

*Okay kiddos - the thread is starting to derail....please review the OP.  Should Israel employ the strict letter of the Geneva Conventions?  Is it even possible or legal in the current situation?*


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 14, 2016)

There are a number of signatories to the declaration of war in 1948 and not all have relaxed their war footing by signing peace treaties and upholding them for at least one year as specified in the Conventions. So yes, the Conventions do apply in a condition of war or in a conflict. I can post the articles that cover that as well if you like 

Sounds like more of your fake hasbara nonsense Monty.

But it doesn't really matter as Israel isn't required to maintain a hostile force.

Nor is Israel responsible for where they go.

Do I need to post the exact articles again ?


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 14, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> There are a number of signatories to the declaration of war in 1948 and not all have relaxed their war footing by signing peace treaties and upholding them for at least one year as specified in the Conventions. So yes, the Conventions do apply in a condition of war or in a conflict. I can post the articles that cover that as well if you like
> 
> Sounds like more of your fake hasbara nonsense Monty.
> 
> ...









 Why bother team Palestine will just ignore them until such a time as they can use parts of them against the Jews. They have already denied that the Treaty of Sevres, Treaty of Lausanne and the Mandate of Palestine don't exist when they support the Jews rights to the land. Maybe we should just fake some UN records and see how quickly they say the UN does not apply either........................


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 14, 2016)

Team Arab Muslims in Israel doesn't stand a chance. The Israeli's would be fully within their rights to segregate combatants from non combatants and send the combatants packing


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 15, 2016)

It is curious that the Palestinians are constantly calling for the enforcement of international law while Israel avoids it like the plague.

Perhaps they know something that you don't.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 15, 2016)

Hardly. 

And what international law do you think the Arab Muslims are upholding to the letter ? 

Certainly not any concerning the administration of law and order 

Is this what you consider upholding international law ? 






No, the Arab Muslims in Israel are a mob devoid of all law. Their leaders are fragmented and ineffectual. There is no law at all let alone this delusion that they somehow follow international law. 

But if Israel employed the Geneva Conventions to the letter this mob could be removed from the equation. Let the peaceful remain and move forward with the peace process. 

Its the Arab Muslim mob that is holding back the entire process.


----------



## theliq (Mar 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.
> 
> As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.
> 
> ...




Well in your weird world perhaps.....but already Warrants have been issued against Nit and Yar Who? and others for Crimes Against Humanity.....Let the Beast fly to Belgium,Spain and other places....so they can send him/them to the Criminal Court of International Justice in Den Hague......for his/their Crimes.

Please come to Belgium


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 19, 2016)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.
> ...



So in my weird world the Geneva Conventions exist. 

Sure put me in my place.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 19, 2016)

another genius tries to stab an Israeli and pays the price 

Palestinian tries to stab Israeli soldiers in West Bank, shot dead: army


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 19, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Well, that would be great,  since roughly half the people now in the West Bank descend from people that 2 to 4 generations ago were the native inhabitants of what now is called Israel, repatriation the native territory of their ancestors would be an excellent move. Now if the Jews in Israel could be repatriated to the native territories of their ancestors 2 to 4 generations ago, the problem would be solved.



Totally agree that the arabs are native to jordan, syria and egypt; are you going to contribute fo the fund to send them back, scumbag?


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 19, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Well, fake Hasbara graphs without sources do not trump fact from source documentation.



WRONG ****.  Norman Finkelstein, Joan Peters and Yehoshua all researched the population and demographics and their work proved that from 1850 to 1931, the vast majority of the increase in arab population was due to immigration from neighboring arab countries.  Suck a dick, idiot.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> It is curious that the Palestinians are constantly calling for the enforcement of international law while Israel avoids it like the plague. Perhaps they know something that you don't.



Scumbag, what would happen to the arabs if they were put on trial for mass murder and terrorism?  For incitement to commit terrorism?  What would bottom-feeding, lowlifes like you say then, scumbag?


----------



## theliq (Mar 19, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > It is curious that the Palestinians are constantly calling for the enforcement of international law while Israel avoids it like the plague. Perhaps they know something that you don't.
> ...


IDIOT


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 20, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> It is curious that the Palestinians are constantly calling for the enforcement of international law while Israel avoids it like the plague.
> 
> Perhaps they know something that you don't.








 Are they, then why do they cancel their calls when it is shown they are the ones in breach of International law.

 Now I ask again for the international laws Israel is accused of breaching with the dates of the breaches and the dates the Laws came into force ?


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 20, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Well, that would be great,  since roughly half the people now in the West Bank descend from people that 2 to 4 generations ago were the native inhabitants of what now is called Israel, repatriation the native territory of their ancestors would be an excellent move. Now if the Jews in Israel could be repatriated to the native territories of their ancestors 2 to 4 generations ago, the problem would be solved.









 But they cant as the nations have a NO JEW law in place, which is typical islamonazi practise.    Our monte forgets that 80% of the Jews in Israel came from muslim lands from after the pogroms of 1949 and 1967


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 20, 2016)

theliq said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Stop looking in the mirror.


 You are aware that in 2014 hamas and the Palestinians were guilty of over 2000 breaches of International law, Geneva conventions and the UN charter


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 20, 2016)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.
> ...







 Which are invalid if you read the laws regarding the writs. They are personal charges and have to be tried in the country of origin. They are not International arrest warrants and so can not be tried by the ICC/ICJ or in the Hague.



 But the truth is



Spain issues arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over deadly 2010 flotilla raid | Fox News



A judge in Spain’s National Court in 2010 determined that the country no longer has the authority to file lawsuits in international incidents and referred the case to the International Criminal Court, which dismissed it.

But Judge Jose de la Mata found a loophole Friday that would allow Spanish authorities to re-open their investigation of the raid if any of the officials enter Spain



 So no crimes against humanity just hostile witnesses, and I believe the warrant has since been nulled.




 The mighty liar liq is found out again and shown to be spreading incitement against the Jews.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 20, 2016)

Phoenall, theliq, Boston1, et al,

Well, some of this is practical and some is not.



			
				Phoenall said:
			
		

> But the truth is
> 
> Spain issues arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over deadly 2010 flotilla raid | Fox News
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT - I AM NOT A LAWYER or NATIONALITY EXPERT)*
(So I'll Speak in generalities that are common to many nations; and in broad brush strokes.)​Israel can only deport people from the sovereign territory of Israel itself; and not the West Bank --- and certainly not the Gaza Strip.  

Normally _(and I say normally because there are just a how volume on the issue)_ initiatiation of deportation procedures comes in one of four broad categories.  They are the most common triggers for such procedures:

•  Serious Criminal Activity _(Examples but not limited to)_

∆  Violent crime 
∆  Aggravated assault 
∆  Fraud 
∆  Weapons violations  
∆  Forgery and counterfeiting  ​•  Crimes which affect National Security

∆  As part of bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts; 
∆  As part of enforcing relevant international conventions and protocols relating to the illicit trafficking of contraband; including the International Convention for the Suppression of: 

∫  The Incitement, providing Marterial Support and Financing of Terrorism
∫  The Illicit Trafficking of SALWs
∫  Acts prohibited by law that constitutes incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts​•  Specified behavior or “conduct” inconsistent with their Visa Status

∆  There are several nations that have identities designated other states as , or so, states.
∆  Any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of providing safe haven to Jihadist, Insurgents, Terrorists, and other radical Asymmetric fights.​•  Certain findings of a court or administrative agency

∆  Persons that committed an act which is considered a breach of loyalty to the country.
∆  Citizenship was granted on the basis of false information​
In general, Israel will only initiate deportation, expulsion or forced removal – physically removing from Israeli Sovereign Territory to a country presumed to be the country origin, or habitual residence, or a country they have transited or to which they have agreed to be removed rather than being returned to their country of origin.

Israel does not exercise effective control over the Gaza Strip, so the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from Gaza does not apply.  

In the West Bank, the Arab Palestinians are habitual residents.  So the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from West Bank does not apply.   

*(FINALLY)*

I don't think that there is much of a real practical application of the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal; relative to the Arab -- Israeli Conflict.

Even the Arab--Palestinians cannot really define the scope and nature of their country. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 20, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, theliq, Boston1, et al,
> 
> Well, some of this is practical and some is not.
> 
> ...



Ah but the Geneva conventions does not require that a combatant restrict its authority to sovereign territory. 

IV Geneva Convention 

Quote 


Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

End Quote 

Its quite clear that one only needs be in the territory or occupied territory of a combatant. 

There's no mention of the term sovereign territory

Ergo if Israel controls it, ( and I'd agree about Gaza in that Israel does not control it ) The disputed territories for instance. Then Israel have every right to make a determination of refugee, civilian or combatant status. 

Particularly since the Disputed territories are under martial law. In which case again the Geneva Conventions are the predominant international representation of law.


----------



## theliq (Mar 20, 2016)

Yeah,and since 1948 Israel has breached over 22,000 ....so you point was............Deafening Silence as usual


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 21, 2016)

theliq said:


> Yeah,and since 1948 Israel has breached over 22,000 ....so you point was............Deafening Silence as usual



Not sure who you are referring to. Also 22,000 what ? 

The thread is concerning Israel's potential use of the Geneva Conventions. Given that the state of war still exists and the conventions are the accepted international law governing war.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 21, 2016)

theliq said:


> Yeah,and since 1948 Israel has breached over 22,000 ....so you point was............Deafening Silence as usual









Then why haven't they been kicked out of the UN, or issued with arrest warrants to be tried at the HAGUE


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 21, 2016)

Boston1,  et al,

You have me confused.



Boston1 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall, theliq, Boston1, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I've lost the emphasis and key to the issue in question. 

A party to the conflict does not get to define anything.  It can make some decisions and it can make some interpretations; BUT it cannot define anything.  The concepts behind a "protected Person," a "civilian," a "refugee," "POWs" and a individuals "not participating" (etc) are already defined.​
The application of these definition are actually the same, without regard to their location.  What does make a difference, relative to a governance of areas in dispute are:  deportation, expulsion or forced removal.  These ideas are not nomenclature oriented.  They are temporal relative to geographic locations.

What you've said, _supra_, is all true; except for one small point.  Israel "DOES NOT" have every right to make a determination of refugee, civilian or combatant status.  The application of those terms and definitions are predetermined and either adequately describe individuals or they do not.

•  A "refugee" is defined by Chapter I, Article Ia, of the Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

•  Persons who are "eligible to register" to receive UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) services and those who are eligible to receive services without being registered" are defined by the UNRWA in the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI).

•  The definitions for "combatants and non-combatants” are set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I.

•  The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I.

•  "Protected Persons" by the Fourth Geneva Convention in both Article 4, and subject to the restrictions of Article 13, and persons who commit offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, are handled in Article 68.

•  Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power are defined in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Not to be confused with the crime itself (_deportation -- forcible transfer -- forced displacement  -- the  expulsion or other coercive acts)_ defined by International Criminal Court under Article 7 of the Rome Statutes.  Whereas the The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population is defined  separately under Article 8 of the Rome Statutes.​
Either a person/individual meets the definition, or does not.  Israel does not get to decide under their own criteria the legal definition.  Interestingly enough, a person may fit more than one definition. 

"I" must have misunderstood the key issue in question.  *And I apologize.*  I had thought the key issue under discussion was _deportation -- forcible transfer -- forced displacement  -- immigration -- naturalization -- entry denial -- and  expulsion._

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.
> 
> As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.
> 
> ...


What's international law say about the Palestinians intentionally targeting civilians?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 21, 2016)

Weatherman2020,  et al,

I find this rather an interesting question.

Theoretically, when there is an alternative choice (meaning no military imperative or specific military objective) --- OR --- target selection is discretionary and it is possible to shift targeting between several military objectives and *obtaining a similar military advantage or battle outcome*, the alternate target that will cause the least danger to civilians must be selected.  Article 57(3), Protocol I, Fourth Geneva Convention.​


Weatherman2020 said:


> What's international law say about the Palestinians intentionally targeting civilians?


*(COMMENT)*

This is a question yet to be tested relative to its application on the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).  The HoAP have no special authority under law to target civilians.  Nor do the HoAP have a any special authority to use any and all means available against the Occupying Power or the citizens of any state.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Weatherman2020,  et al,
> 
> I find this rather an interesting question.
> 
> ...


Thus firing thousands of missiles at civilian population centers rather than at military bases means there should be a war crimes trial for all Palestinians involved.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 21, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.
> ...









 It says they are very naughty boys and girls and will be sent to bed without any supper.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> You have me confused.
> 
> ...



I was thinking repatriation of non protected persons all the way. POWs which IMHO includes those who've lost their protected persons status may be repatriated. Its civilians and refugees who may not be subject to forcible transfer from what I can see. On that I think we agree. 

Since virtually all Arab Muslims in Israel's, last national identity was Jordanian, I'd be inclined to say they could be sent their, however, Israel isn't responsible for where they end up, only that they depart in good condition.

I believe the aspect of the treaty you outline are in regards to civilians or refugees. But no effort has ever been made to segregate the combatants from the civilians and refugees and treat them accordingly. I'm suggesting that no peace can be found while these combatant elements remain within the Israeli boundaries. 

I need to go through the links, its early and I don't much time right now but yeah, I may have misunderstood you.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 21, 2016)

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are?  You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.

*"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention*

1. This Declaration reflects the common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on 17 December 2014, mindful of the recommendation by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 64/10 of 1 December 2009.

2. The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the statement of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.

4. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize the continued applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which all High Contracting Parties have undertaken to respect and to ensure respect for in all circumstances. As such, they call on the occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. They also remind the occupying Power of its obligation to administer the Occupied Palestinian Territory in a way which fully takes into account the needs of the civilian population while safeguarding its own security, and notably preserve its demographic characteristics.

5. The participating High Contracting Parties recall the primary obligation of the occupying Power to ensure adequate supplies of the population of the occupied territory and that whenever it is not in a position to do so, it is under the obligation to allow and facilitate relief schemes. In that case, they further recall that all High Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of humanitarian relief and shall guarantee its protection. In this regard, the participating High Contracting Parties reiterate their support to the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, within its particular role conferred upon it by the Geneva Conventions, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and of other impartial humanitarian organizations, to assess and alleviate the humanitarian situation in the field. Beyond, all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, should make all possible efforts to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for the population of the occupied territory.

6. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that all serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated and that all those responsible should be brought to justice.

7. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict, and as such also by non-State actors, including in the context of military operations and attacks directed against and emanating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory since the Conference of High Contracting Parties on 5 December 2001 and the resulting great suffering of the civilian population. They are particularly concerned about the number of victims among the civilian population in densely populated areas.

8. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They recall that, according to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, at least insofar as it deviates from the Green Line, and its associated regime, are contrary to international humanitarian law. They equally express their deep concern, from an international humanitarian law standpoint, about certain measures taken by the occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the closure of the Gaza Strip. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territory and of the expansion thereof and of related unlawful seizure of property as well as of the transfer of prisoners into the territory of the occupying Power.

9. With regard to the conduct of hostilities, the participating High Contracting Parties underscore that the following acts are, among others, prohibited by international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict, and as such also for non-State actors: (1) indiscriminate attacks of any kind, including attacks which are not directed at specific military objectives, and the employment of a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects do not meet the requirements of the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (2) disproportionate attacks of any kind, including excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure; (3) destruction of property, carried out inconsistently with the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (4) attacks against protected persons and objects, including medical buildings, material, transports, units and personnel, as well as humanitarian personnel and objects, unless and for such time as they have lost their protection against direct attack; (5) attacks against civilian objects, including schools, unless and for such time as they are military objectives; (6) the location of military objectives in the vicinity of civilians and civilian objects, when it would be avoidable and (7) the use of civilians as human shields.

10. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, and stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."

A/69/711-S/2015/1 of 9 January 2015


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 21, 2016)

Phoenall,  et al,

Well, I think this is actually much more true than sarcastic.

The growing scale of self-serving and dishonest action by the UN and its institutions has eroded trust and confidence of many worldwide; where government agencies, the international courts, and political leaders have all been seen more abuses of power these days than in decades past. 

Relative to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, selective enforcement occurs when international officials such as UN Refugee Agency, legal scholars, international courts and professional institutions, and UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) exercise pronouncement discretion, which is the power to choose whether or how to impune Israel on the question of international law violations, while ignoring the actions of the Palestinians.



Phoenall said:


> It says they are very naughty boys and girls and will be sent to bed without any supper.


*(COMMENT)*

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has implied many times that Israel has committed war crimes in its countermeasures and operations against HAMAS  where hundreds of Palestinian civilians were placed in harm's way.   Commissioner Pillay has implied that Israel was not doing enough to protect civilians. “There is a strong possibility,” said the known Israel critic, “that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes.”  Not once did Commission Pillay suggest that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) failed to Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas; or that the HoAP Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives.  Nor did the Commissioner emphasize the prohibition on human shields, as everything feasible effort must be done to separate military objectives from the civilian population.  And that because of the HoAP failure to distance hostile operations or remove civilians --- an inordinate number were casualties in what appears to be --- the use of those civilians to shield otherwise legitimate HoAP activities.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 21, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are?  You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.
> 
> *"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention*
> 
> ...




Yikes

Although I did enjoy you shooting yourself in the foot again. 

I wonder if you bother reading what you cut and paste. Or if you just hope no one else does. 


Quote 

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1)* the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants* and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.
End Quote 

Looks to me by your own admission Israel is obligated to distinguish between civilians and combatants. 

Exactly as I've been saying all along. 

One is a protected person, the other is not. 

The UN also spells out in its own operating guidelines, processes by which combatants are segregated from refugees. But that might be a little complex for you Monty 

The Geneva Conventions specifically outlines two very different permissible treatments for persons considered protected ( either refugees or civilians ) and those considered combatants.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 21, 2016)

Maybe we should review just who a combatant is outside the Geneva conventions definition.

From

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiHkPCjl9LLAhXEsYMKHQF_B1QQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule3&usg=AFQjCNEkXoF6zn79TJt9CrzoPxzqA6ZvqA&sig2=o2OTO2t7uu2OZqVsUVjGAA&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Quote

*Rule 3. Definition of Combatants*

*Rule 3. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.*

*Summary*

State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law in international armed conflicts. For purposes of the principle of distinction (see Rule 1), members of State armed forces may be considered combatants in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Combatant status, on the other hand, exists only in international armed conflicts (see introductory note to Chapter 33).

*International armed conflicts*

This rule goes back to the Hague Regulations, according to which “the armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants”._[1]_  It is now set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I._[2]_

Numerous military manuals contain this definition of combatants._[3]_  It is supported by official statements and reported practice._[4]_  This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I._[5]_

No official contrary practice was found.

*Non-international armed conflicts*

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II refer to “armed forces” and Additional Protocol II also to “dissident armed forces and other organized armed groups”. These concepts are not further defined in the practice pertaining to non-international armed conflicts. While State armed forces may be considered combatants for purposes of the principle of distinction (see Rule 1), practice is not clear as to the situation of members of armed opposition groups. Practice does indicate, however, that persons do not enjoy the protection against attack accorded to civilians when they take a direct part in hostilities (see Rule 6).

Persons taking a direct part in hostilities in non-international armed conflicts are sometimes labelled “combatants”. For example, in a resolution on respect for human rights in armed conflict adopted in 1970, the UN General Assembly speaks of “combatants in all armed conflicts”._[6]_  More recently, the term “combatant” was used in the Cairo Declaration and Cairo Plan of Action for both types of conflicts._[7]_  However, this designation is only used in its generic meaning and indicates that these persons do not enjoy the protection against attack accorded to civilians, but this does not imply a right to combatant status or prisoner-of-war status, as applicable in international armed conflicts (see Chapter 33). The lawfulness of direct participation in hostilities in non-international armed conflicts is governed by national law. While such persons could also be called “fighters”, this term would be translated as “combatant” in a number of languages and is therefore not wholly satisfactory either.

Treaty provisions use different designations that can apply to “fighters” in the context of non-international armed conflicts, including: persons taking active part in the hostilities;_[8]_  members of dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups;_[9]_  persons who take a direct part in hostilities;_[10]_  civilians who take a direct part in hostilities;_[11]_  civilians taking direct part in hostilities;_[12]_  and combatant adversary._[13]_  The uncertainty about the qualification of members of armed opposition groups is further addressed in the commentaries to Rules 5 and 6.

*Interpretation*

According to this rule, when military medical and religious personnel are members of the armed forces, they are nevertheless considered non-combatants. According to the First Geneva Convention, temporary medical personnel have to be respected and protected as non-combatants only as long as the medical assignment lasts (see commentary to Rule 25)._[14]_  As is the case for civilians (see Rule 6), respect for non-combatants is contingent on their abstaining from taking a direct part in hostilities.

The military manuals of Germany and the United States point out that there can be other non-combatant members of the armed forces besides medical and religious personnel. Germany’s Military Manual explains that “combatants are persons who may take a direct part in hostilities, i.e., participate in the use of a weapon or a weapon-system in an indispensable function”, and specifies, therefore, that “persons who are members of the armed forces but do not have any combat mission, such as judges, government officials and blue-collar workers, are non-combatants”._[15]_  The US Naval Handbook states that “civil defense personnel and members of the armed forces who have acquired civil defense status” are non-combatants, in addition to medical and religious personnel._[16]_

Non-combatant members of the armed forces are not to be confused, however, with civilians accompanying armed forces who are not members of the armed forces by definition._[17]_

While in some countries, entire segments of the population between certain ages may be drafted into the armed forces in the event of armed conflict, only those persons who are actually drafted, i.e., who are actually incorporated into the armed forces, can be considered combatants. Potential mobilization does not render the person concerned a combatant liable to attack._[18]_


_[1]_ Hague Regulations, Article 3 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 1, § 571).

_[2]_ Additional Protocol I, Article 43(2) (adopted by consensus) (_ibid._, § 572).

_[3]_ See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (_ibid._, § 574), Australia (_ibid._, § 575), Belgium (_ibid._, § 576), Benin (_ibid._, § 577), Cameroon (_ibid._, § 578), Canada (_ibid._, § 579), Colombia (_ibid._, § 580), Croatia (_ibid._, §§ 581–582), Dominican Republic (_ibid._, § 583), Ecuador (_ibid._, § 584), France (_ibid._, §§ 585–586), Germany (_ibid._, § 587), Hungary (_ibid._, § 588), Indonesia (_ibid._, § 589), Israel (_ibid._, § 590), Italy (_ibid._, §§ 591–592), Kenya (_ibid._, § 593), South Korea (_ibid._, § 594), Madagascar (_ibid._, § 595), Netherlands (_ibid._, § 596), New Zealand (_ibid._, § 597), Russia (_ibid._, § 598), South Africa (_ibid._, § 599), Spain (_ibid._, § 600), Sweden (_ibid._, § 601), Togo (_ibid._, § 602), United Kingdom (_ibid._, § 603) and United States (_ibid._, §§ 604–606).

_[4]_ See, e.g., the practice of Argentina (_ibid._, 611), India (_ibid._, § 612), Iraq (_ibid._, § 613), Japan (_ibid._, § 614), Jordan (_ibid._, § 615) and Syria (_ibid._, § 619).

_[5]_ See, e.g., the practice of France (_ibid._, § 585), Indonesia (_ibid._, § 589), Israel (_ibid._, § 590), Kenya (_ibid._, § 593), United Kingdom (_ibid._, § 603) and United States (_ibid._, §§ 604–606).

_[6]_ UN General Assembly, Res. 2676 (XXV), 9 December 1970, preamble and § 5.

_[7]_ Cairo Declaration, Sections 68–69, and Cairo Plan of Action, Section 82, both adopted at the Africa-Europe Summit held under the Aegis of the Organization of African Unity and the European Union, 3–4 April 2000.

_[8]_ Geneva Conventions, common Article 3.

_[9]_ Additional Protocol II, Article 1(1) (adopted by 58 votes in favour, 5 against and 29 abstentions) (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 1, § 633).

_[10]_ Additional Protocol II, Article 4(1) (adopted by consensus).

_[11]_ Additional Protocol II, Article 13(3) (adopted by consensus) (_ibid_., § 756).

_[12]_ ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(e)(i).

_[13]_ ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(e)(ix).

_[14]_ First Geneva Convention, Article 25 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 7, § 7).

_[15]_ Germany, _Military Manual_ (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 1, § 587).

_[16]_ United States, _Naval Handbook_ (_ibid._, § 605).

_[17]_ See Third Geneva Convention, Article 4(A)(4).

_[18]_ This conclusion is based on discussions during the second consultation with academic and governmental experts in the framework of this study in May 1999 and the general agreement among the experts to this effect. The experts also considered that it may be necessary to consider the legislation of a State in determining when reservists actually become members of the armed forces

End Quote.

And mind you all that combatants may be forcefully ejected from the territory of the controlling party.

In the case of stateless persons no provisions are made within the Geneva Conventions as to repatriation.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 21, 2016)

As always, the invading European colonists blame the native people for the violence. It is one the worst cases of cognitive dissonance ever.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 21, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are?  You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.
> ...



The more you are shown to be a fool, the more you cut and paste.  However, it is clear who the High Contracting Parties determined were the protected persons in the 2014 declaration.  They were the people of Gaza.  Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. LOL


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 21, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are?  You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.
> 
> *"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention*
> 
> ...








 Did Palestine sign this document, because if they did they should be dragged before the Hague for their breaches of it before the ink was dry.


 Read article 9 that sums it up very clearly, and was aimed directly at the palestinians


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 21, 2016)

montelatici said:


> As always, the invading European colonists blame the native people for the violence. It is one the worst cases of cognitive dissonance ever.







Is that why you are hated so much, because you are an invading European colonist that has no legal rights to the property you paid for.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 21, 2016)

montelatici said:


> As always, the invading European colonists blame the native people for the violence. It is one the worst cases of cognitive dissonance ever.



Hasbara and more hasbara, when will you quit with all the hasbara Monty. You've been shown time and time again that only a small fraction of the Judaic returnees were from Eruope. The vast majority actually came from middle eastern countries. 

Its the Arab Muslims who colonized Judaea in the early to mid 20th century.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 21, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are?  You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.
> 
> *"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention*
> 
> ...


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 21, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







  Just read your cut and paste again and cant see any implied or direct reference to gaza being the protected persons. I do see the high contracting parties demanding that hamas stop all war crimes and cease firing rockets at children from civilian areas


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 21, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Sometimes when people get older Phoenall they start getting a little confused, if you know what I mean. Monty seems like he's, older, ( wink )

The guy consistently posts cut and paste that directly refutes his own claims. Not sure he reads what he's linking to and if he does. Well, he's having trouble with the hasbara

The basics are extremely simple. Israel has an obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians. The combatants can ( actually must ) be repatriated, regardless of if they are stateless. The Conventions do not require Israel to determine their final destination only that they be delivered to the place of debarkation in good condition.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 21, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...








 Its an islamonazi propagandist trait, they are commanded to post such and such without any thought for the consequences. Then they are left out to dry by their imams to see if they can move one seat closer to the bucket in the boiler room.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 21, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Well it is difficult to reason with a group who don't seem to have mastered plumbing yet 






You can get these fools to chant akba falafal but try and get them to chant "shit runs downhill" and see what happens. 

In the end Israel has every right and even obligation to enforce the Geneva Conventions and get these idiots outa here


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 21, 2016)

Phoenall,  MONTELATICI, et al,

Well, it is not really law.  It was a conference in the existing law.  It is not a document that is enforceable.  It is merely an official statement that reflects a *"common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference."*

Neither are the previous Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

I'm not sure what MONTELATICI's purpose was in posting this lame conference, but it has no real application beyond what has been already elaborated through the misfeasance and malfeasance the UN Humanitarian and Human Rights  --- and the international courts. 



Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are?  You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

•  It *reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles* of international humanitarian law.

 (1) the obligation to *distinguish between civilians and combatants* and between civilian objects and military objectives, 

(2) the *principle of proportionality*, and 

(3) the obligation *to take all feasible precautions* to protect civilians and civilian objects. ​
•  It emphasize the continued *applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention*.

•   It recall the primary obligation of the Occupying Power to *ensure adequate supplies to the population* of the occupied territory.

•  It emphasize that *all serious violations* of international humanitarian law *must be investigated*.

•   It expresses a *deep concern* about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict.

•  It express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt); and the *partition using a security barrie*r that goes beyond the Green Line. 

•   It recalls the prohibited acts in the international humanitarian law for *all parties* to the conflict.

•   It reiterate the need to find a *peaceful solution to the conflict*, and stress that respect for and *implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention*.​It actually doesn't say anything new.  Every item on the list is just as applicable to the reported discrepancies committed by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), as it might be to the Israelis.

1.  There is no HoAP distinction between combatants and non-combatants.  The attack non-combatants at will and openly stress that they have every right to do so.

2.  There is no lack of supplies in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt).  In fact there are so many supplies, satisfactory and acceptable in quality or quantity, that the construction of underground tunnels has begun. 

3.  There are routinely IDF/Ministry of Justice investigation performed on all accusation of "serious violations."

4.  The concern for the Security Barrier is negated by the Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan which replace the Armistice Agreements that establish the Armistice Lines.​It should be noted that the HoAP have ignored the "implementation" of the Geneva Convention.  They routinely re-open hostilities and use indiscriminate fire on civilian targets.  They routinely target civilian buses, school children, the aging and infirm, --- kidnap and murder civilians.  The HoAP routine use the density of their civilian population to establish firing and launch positions.  The absolutely refuse to Locate HoAP Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas and refuse to Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives; instead using those position to shield legitimate targets and use casualties incurred in counter-fires and military combat advances as media events.  All the IDF operations engaged and suppressed with such force as was necessary to silence HoAP operations and achieve the destruction of concrete military target to achieve the advantage.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall,  MONTELATICI, et al,
> 
> Well, it is not really law.  It was a conference in the existing law.  It is not a document that is enforceable.  It is merely an official statement that reflects a *"common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference."*
> 
> ...


I liked your post until you got to Israel's propaganda talking points on the end.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall,  MONTELATICI, et al,
> 
> Well, it is not really law.  It was a conference in the existing law.  It is not a document that is enforceable.  It is merely an official statement that reflects a *"common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference."*
> 
> ...



Notice how the statement that reiterates that Israel is the "Occupying Power" is overlooked.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Hummm, interesting.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."
> ...


*(QUESTIONS)*

•  Are you suggesting that the 2015 Convention Statement had no applicability to the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)?

•  Are you saying that the HoAP has a policy of a "peaceful solution" in resolving the conflict?  --- That the HoAP has some special authority to attack Israeli civilian targets?

•  Are you suggesting that the HoAP never intentionally loose indiscriminate fires or directly attack civilians?

•  Are you suggesting that the HoAP have investigated and released reports on Geneva Convention Violations they are accused of?

•  Are you suggestion that the IDF/Ministry of Justice do not make the investigations?

•  Are you suggesting that there is now or have ever been an Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians that established an Armistice Line?

•  Are you suggesting that the Egyptian and Jordanian Armistice Agreements are wrong when they indicate that the Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement (as in Peace Treaty) between the Parties is achieved?

•  Are you suggesting that the Palestinians were a party to the conflict?​Exactly what is it you are saying that you disagree with?????

I'm confused!!!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 21, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

I don't think anyone overlooked that.



montelatici said:


> Notice how the statement that reiterates that Israel is the "Occupying Power" is overlooked.


*(COMMENT)*

Generally speaking, it is taken for granted that the "Occupation Power" is taken to mean the Jewish State of Israel.  And they also observe that the statement says:

•  The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times ---

•  recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict,

•  the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict,


*(QUESTION)*

Are you suggesting that the HoAP does not have to follow the Geneva Convention?

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## montelatici (Mar 21, 2016)

No, I am saying that Israel is the occupying power.  Something your buddy denies.  Maybe you can explain to your buddy that while combatants of the occupied territory may be held as POWs if not killed and captured, by definition, they can't be "repatriated" anywhere outside of their "patria" as we say in Latin.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 21, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

I think you are unnecessarily confusing people with your non-standard description.  I think I get it now.  Let's see.  You are three-quarters correct.



montelatici said:


> No, I am saying that Israel is the occupying power.  Something your buddy denies.  Maybe you can explain to your buddy that while combatants of the occupied territory may be held as POWs if not killed and captured, by definition, they can't be "repatriated" anywhere outside of their "patria" as we say in Latin.


*(POINT of CLARIFICATION)*

You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin _(in most cases they are one and the same, but not always)_.

You cannot deport people from their home country _(to which they are a lawful citizen)_.  That would technically be a "banishment, _(exile or expulsion)_."  While there was such a thing as "banishment" and "exiles" at the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, it is now considered the creation of a "Stateless Person." 

The term "stateless person" means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under as a national operation of its law.   Chapter 1, Article 1(1), The Convention related to the Status of Stateless Persons

*(COMMENT)*

Article 5 People are individual "protected persons" that are "definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State" --- but are being prosecuted under Article 68.   Notice the similarity in the language used in Articles 5 and 68.  Generally speaking, you cannot deport Article 5 People _(and HoAP/Palestinian Belligerents)_ without a serious diplomatic effort.  No other country is required to take them _(hence a "stateless person")_.  They are normally prosecuted under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.  For the purposes of the West Bank that would be the Israeli Law as of 1 August 1988; when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt).

Now there are certain conditions, under which the individual in question cannot be readily classified.  In such cases, a special tribunal must be convened by the Occupation Power to make a determination.  Until such time that a determination is made, they should be confined as a Prisoner of War (POW) (Article 3) with the same protections.  In some cases, these special prisoners may be segregated from the General Population of other POWs.

Normally Jihadists and Fedayeen, engaged in hostile or belligerent activities intended to harm the Occupying Power, or non-combatants as set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I are treated as Article 5, under the provision of Article 68 _(Penalties and Punishment)_ in connection with stipulations outlined in S/RES/1373 (2001) UNSC Resolution,  all General Assembly resolutions on measures to eliminate international terrorism, including resolution 46/51 of 9 December 1991, and Security Council resolutions on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, as well as relevant resolutions of the General Assembly on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

Most HoAP that have followed the Solemn Oath sent to the UN in February 1948, and those that allegiance to the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) for Jihad, or follow the 2012 Policy articulated by HAMAS are unambiguous Article 5 People.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Mar 21, 2016)

Most native people that have been colonized are hostile to their colonizers.  That is just a fact.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm, interesting.
> 
> ...


Who are the HoAP? Are those the people who are opposed to the occupation and colonization of their country?


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I think you are unnecessarily confusing people with your non-standard description.  I think I get it now.  Let's see.  You are three-quarters correct.
> 
> ...



But its not deportation if they have forfeited their protected persons status. Its repatriation of a POW. Which does not require Israel to determine or even negotiate where their final destination might be.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall,  MONTELATICI, et al,
> ...







It is not Israeli talking points it is the UN's talking points made simple for idiots like you to understand. Seems that we will have to employ some 7 year old to explain things for you as 10 year olds are out of your comfort zone


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall,  MONTELATICI, et al,
> ...






 NO as *they are* the occupying power and do so under the Geneva conventions and IHL, which is spelt out in your cut and paste.  
 Note how the use of illegal weapons and terrorist tactics by the Palestinians is not questioned and brought to the ICC/ICJ for issue of arrest warrants on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 No they are the arab muslim illegal immigrants that have brainwashed you into believing that it is their country even though they have no legal rights to it.

Read the surrender terms after the Ottoman empire was trounced in 1917, and what the Ottoman,s had to hand over to the victors as war booty and reparations


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

montelatici said:


> No, I am saying that Israel is the occupying power.  Something your buddy denies.  Maybe you can explain to your buddy that while combatants of the occupied territory may be held as POWs if not killed and captured, by definition, they can't be "repatriated" anywhere outside of their "patria" as we say in Latin.







 No one denies that Israel is the occupying power in regards to the west bank, as they hit the criteria as detailed in International law. They work within the framework of International law in regards to the occupation and provide all the needs of the occupied people. They also police the territory using the laws in place by the sovereign owners in 1967 as detailed in the Geneva conventions, they would not lower themselves to use hamas laws and drag a man through the streets behind a car or bike until they are dead.  

 Wrong on your second point as the international laws say they can be removed to the last nation they passed through or a nation willing to take them in. You really need to start reading from valid sites before you show yourself to be a complete idiot.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Most native people that have been colonized are hostile to their colonizers.  That is just a fact.








 NOPE it isn't as some see it as a fresh start for them and their land. And you forget that the Jews were native to the area and that is was they who where colonised first. Read the Ottomans history of their failed attempts at colonising Palestine with arab muslims that failed 3 times in 2 years. How the arab muslims moved back to their nomadic lifestyle and left palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I think you are unnecessarily confusing people with your non-standard description.  I think I get it now.  Let's see.  You are three-quarters correct.
> 
> ...


You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin _(in most cases they are one and the same, but not always)_.​
Does that mean that most people in the West Bank and Gaza would be deported back to what is now called Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


You are mistaken. The UN part was the part I said I liked.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


I have. You have been misinformed.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


No. To Jordan, Syria and Egypt.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 22, 2016)

Subject kids. 

Are the Arab nations still at war or conflict with Israel ? 

Is Israel involved in an internal war ? 

Does or doesn't that result in the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions 

If so who qualifies as a protected person and what actions might forfeit that protected person status. 

In the end IMHO Israel is at war and it does have the right and the obligation to distinguish and segregate combatants from non combatants. And treat them accordingly


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come now.



P F Tinmore said:


> Who are the HoAP? Are those the people who are opposed to the occupation and colonization of their country?


*(COMMENT)*

These are the Arab-Palestinians that operate outside the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations:



			
				UN Charter - Chapter 1 - Article 2 said:
			
		

> 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
> 
> 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> *SOURCE:* UN CHARTER



The Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoAP) characteristically conduct activities that do not conform within the such guidelines as outlined in the Geneva Convention; yet present themselves to be the ever perpetual whining victim.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2016)

Boston1,  et al,

Repatriation of a POW _(or anyone else for that matter)_ is the  process of returning a person (protected or not) to their place of origin or citizenship. 



Boston1 said:


> But its not deportation if they have forfeited their protected persons status. Its repatriation of a POW. Which does not require Israel to determine or even negotiate where their final destination might be.


*(COMMENT)*

Repatriation by definition, cannot create a "stateless person" and cannot deport the person from their home.   In fact, while it is normal that POWs are usually prisoners from a foreign power, that is not the case 100% of the time.  In any event, it is questionable that you can use "repatriation" as a tool; since it is under international law that you cannot force "repatriation" _(alla ICRC)_ in all cases.  




You cannot forcibly repatriate a POW to a country or territory for which the POW is not native and does not hold citizenship.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Now you are just being foolish.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > You deport people either to their last known country of residence, or their country of origin _(in most cases they are one and the same, but not always)_.​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

A "protected person" in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is in their country.  If they were deported, they would be sent to bed.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...








 Only the Jews and Christian, the arab muslims would have to look at Egypt, Syria , Jordan and Iran


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Did you understand the UN parts, or did you include the words Jew, Zionist and Israel in the parts you believed they were missing ?


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 How so when I have read the surrender terms and cant see any mention of Palestine being an arab muslim state. I do see the parts that say the defeated Ottomans and their allies are to surrender the lands in the M.E.    Is that the part you have the problems with reading and understanding ?


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now you are just being foolish.
> 
> ...








 Without any warm milk or supper for being a very naughty boy or girl. Then made to stand in the corner wearing the dunces cap


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Repatriation of a POW _(or anyone else for that matter)_ is the  process of returning a person (protected or not) to their place of origin or citizenship.
> 
> ...



Its way to early to be rooting through the Geneva Conventions, however.

Repatriation isn't creating a stateless person if the person is already stateless. 

Also forced repatriation refers to a POW being forced to return home. It does not refer to a nations right to expel a combatant force. If the POW has no home/nation then there can be no forced repatriation, particularly if the combatant refuses to abide by the CHL and forgo any further hostile actions if left within the host nation. Its a simple matter of a nations right to expel a hostile force. 

The first thing that needs to be considered is that at no point have the Arab Muslims within Israel ever had their status determined on an individual basis. Combatants and non combatants, under the conventions must be segregated and may receive different treatment.

Jordan stripped the Arab Muslims of Israel ( combatants and non combatants alike ) of their Jordanian citizenship. IMHO this does not make Israel responsible for them and they are now stateless persons.

As such there are no provisions within the Geneva Conventions which require a host nation to offer them ( enemy combatants and non combatants alike ) citizenship.

Nor do the conventions require a host nation to house in perpetuity enemy combatants. The host nation may repatriate POWs at their discretion.

In the end the term repatriation does mean to return to ones country of origin, however the Arab Muslims in Jordan illegally stripped the Arab Muslims in Israel of their citizenship. Making them ultimately responsible for not only starting the war in the first place but then of inventing the stateless persons condition which some are now trying to foist off on Israel.

I think we need to be very careful to recognize the artificial nature of the problem of stateless persons in Israel.

The only term used in reference to expelling enemy combatants taken prisoners in war in the Geneva Conventions is "repatriate".

In any case every country has the right to depatriate whoever they please.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 22, 2016)

_In any case every country has the right to depatriate whoever they please._

No, that would contravene Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it would be an arbitrary exile. Israel is a signatory.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2016)

Boston1,  et al,

There are a couple things here that don't ring true.



Boston1 said:


> Its way to early to be rooting through the Geneva Conventions, however.
> 
> Repatriation isn't creating a stateless person if the person is already stateless.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You would have to give me an example case.  

The Geneva Convention, in general, does not set the standard for handling "stateless people."  Stateless People are created.  You cannot make the disposition of stateless people until you understand how it is that they became "stateless."   To my knowledge, I am completely unaware of any Arab Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip that are technically stateless.

It would have to be a very, very special case for Israel to "legally" _(under any provision of law)_ compel or force action to deport, transfer, exile or otherwise expel any Arab-Palestinians from a place within the designated occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) to a place outside the oPt.  They are citizens of the State of Palestine.  

*Article 28 *
*2003 Amended Basic Law*
No Palestinian may be deported from the homeland, prevented or prohibited from returning to or leaving it, deprived of his citizenship, or handed over to any foreign entity.​
I'm still not sure what the objective is; but there are certain actions that cannot be taken and be considered lawful.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 22, 2016)

The special case would be one of war.

And just because the Arab Muslims of Israel write up a law that states Israel is stuck with them doesn't make it so.

Israel is a sovereign nation and as such isn't subject to the demands of foreign nationals ( Jordanians stripped of their citizenship ) within their borders.

Simply because the Jordanians stripped the Arab Muslims of Israel of their Jordanian citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them.

Just because the doves in Israel offered them permanent resident status doesn't mean that status applies to enemy combatants.

I'm suggesting Israel vet each and every Arab Muslim in Israel for status, combatant or noncombatant. All combatants forfeit their protections as civilians or refugees and become POWs subject to the laws of war. The Geneva Conventions. Which take precedence over other forms of law during wartime.

POWs must be repatriated ( expelled ) at the earliest possible opportunity.

It falls under every countries right to defend itself as stated in the UN charter.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

montelatici said:


> _In any case every country has the right to depatriate whoever they please._
> 
> No, that would contravene Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it would be an arbitrary exile. Israel is a signatory.








So is Jordan and Egypt and they still expelled by force the Jews who lived there in 1949 and again in 1967


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> There are a couple things here that don't ring true.
> 
> ...








 So how do they stand if they declare themselves Palestinian while holding say Israeli citizenship. Could Israel not expel them from Israel and send them to gaza ( part of Palestine ) if they are found guilty of any criminal activity ?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2016)

Boston1,  et al,

I think I may have misunderstood.

I think of the Arab-Israeli and the Arab-Palestinian as totally separate entities.  The first is Israeli and the second is Palestinian.

Let me say this at the outset.  I do not practice law.  I am presenting my limited understanding based on my experience in a previous professional.



Boston1 said:


> The special case would be one of war.
> 
> And just because the Arab Muslims of Israel write up a law that states Israel is stuck with them doesn't make it so.
> 
> ...


*(REFERENCE)*

*PART TWO: LOSS OF NATIONALITY*[​Renunciation
of Nationality. *10.*

(a) An Israel national of full age, not being an inhabitant of Israel , may declare that he desires to renounce his Israel nationality; such renunciation is subject to the consent of the Minister of the Interior; the declarant's Israel nationality terminates on the day fixed by the Minister.
(b) The Israel nationality of a minor, not being an inhabitant of Israel, terminates upon his parents' renouncing their Israel nationality; it does not terminate so long as one of his parents remains an Israel national.
Revocation of
Naturalisation. *11.*

(a) Where a person, having acquired Israeli nationality by naturalisation -
(1) has done so on the basis of false particulars; or
(2) has been abroad for seven consecutive years and has no effective connection with Israel, and has failed to prove that his effective connection with Israel was severed otherwise than by his own volition; or
(3) has committed an act of disloyalty towards the State of Israel, a District Court may, upon the application of the Minister of the Interior, revoke such person's naturalisation.

(b) The Court may, upon such application, rule that the revocation shall apply also to such children of the naturalised person as acquired Israel nationality by virtue of his naturalisation and are inhabitants of a foreign country.
(c) Israel nationality terminates on the day on which the judgment revoking naturalisation ceases to be appealable or on such later day as the Court may fix.
Saving of
Liability. *12. *

Loss of Israel nationality does not relieve from a liability arising out of such nationality and created before its loss.​
*Israel: Revocation of Citizenship *

(Sept. 8, 2008) On July 28, 2008, the Knesset (Israel's parliament) passed the Nationality Law (Amendment No. 9, 5768-2008). The amendment regulates the revocation of Israeli citizenship in cases specified by law. The main significance of the amendment is the transfer of the authority to revoke citizenship from the Minister of Interior to the Court of Administrative Matters upon the Minister's request.

A judicial determination is required for a revocation requested by the Minister at the termination of a three-year period from the acquisition of citizenship and in cases where the person subject to the request committed an act that constitutes a “breach of loyalty to the State of Israel.” Such a breach is defined as follows: (1) committing, assisting in, or enticing into the commitment of a terrorist act, including taking an active role in the activities of a terrorist organization, as defined by the Prohibition on Financing of Terrorism Law, 5765-2005; (2) committing an act that constitutes treason or aggravated espionage in accordance with the Penal Law, 5737-1977; or (3) acquiring citizenship or a right to permanent residence in a country or an area specified as Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip. Judicial approval for a revocation is not required within the first three years after acquisition of citizenship, if that acquisition was based on false information.

*A court may decree a revocation of citizenship based on the commission of a “breach of loyalty to the State of Israel” only if the revocation will not result in the person becoming stateless;* in the event that it does, the person will be granted a permit of residence in Israel. For the purpose of determination of statelessness, the Law recognizes a presumption that a person who permanently resides outside of Israel will not remain stateless. In proceedings outlined under the Law, the court may deviate from the laws of evidence and admit evidence in the presence of one party only. No hearings, however, will take place in the absence of the person whose citizenship revocation is requested unless (s)he was legally summonsed but did not appear in court. (Nationality Law (Amendment No. 9), 5768-2008 (July 28, 2008), the Knesset website, _available at_//www.knesset.gov.il/privatelaw/data/17/3/175_3_8.rtf; Nationality Law Bill (Amendment No. 9) (Authority for Revocation of Citizenship), 5768-2007 (Oct. 10, 2007), the Knesset website, _available at_//www.knesset.gov.il/Laws/Data/BillKnesset/175/175.pdf.)​*(COMMENT)*

If you are talking about Arab-Israelis, as opposed to Arab-Palestinians. then the law is different.  Please note the bolded part.

In general, “breach of loyalty to the State of Israel,” and:

(1) committing, assisting in, or enticing into the commitment of a terrorist act, including taking an active role in the activities of a terrorist organization, as defined by the Prohibition on Financing of Terrorism Law, 5765-2005; 

(2) committing an act that constitutes treason or aggravated espionage in accordance with the Penal Law, 5737-1977; or 

(3) acquiring citizenship or a right to permanent residence in a country or an area specified as Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip. ​
In Israel, there is a vested interest.  Once you've been a citizen for three years, "Judicial Approval is required.  In any case, Israeli Law does not generally accept that a person should ever become "stateless."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2016)

Phoenall,  et al,

There may be a provision.  These actions are usually an irrevocable process.



Phoenall said:


> So how do they stand if they declare themselves Palestinian while holding say Israeli citizenship. Could Israel not expel them from Israel and send them to gaza ( part of Palestine ) if they are found guilty of any criminal activity ?


*(COMMENT)*

It is not as easy as you might think; and it is not automatic.  See *Posting #80 *above.  

Each case is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  Certainly, an Allocution (formally declaration), or a Renunciation (relinquishing citizenship or nationality) before the authorities will demonstrate the intent.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall,  et al,
> 
> There may be a provision.  These actions are usually an irrevocable process.
> 
> ...



Bingo, a case by case basis 

Actually the conventions require Israel to determine the status of all within the disputed territory, on a case by case basis. 

And to treat segregate combatants from non combatants. Female combatants must be held separately from male combatants. so forth. 

So now we have a group of combatants. Is any nation required to maintain hostile combatants on its soil indefinitely ?


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> I think I may have misunderstood.
> 
> ...




A classic example of the Israeli's taking the higher road and shooting themselves in the foot in the process. 

I think the use of the term palestinian in reference to Arab Muslims in Israel is disingenuous at best. Given that the term wasn't invented util about 1968 and that its used to fake the indigenous status of colonists mostly from the early to mid 20 century second Arab colonial period.  

for the purposes of this conversation I take all Arab Muslims in Israel to have one of two standings. Either having accepted citizenship of Israel or not.

Having not accepted citizenship, those Arab Muslims fall under the Geneva Conventions.

Having accepted citizenship, those Arab Muslims fall under Israeli law.

IMHO any nation has a right to expel a hostile force regardless of statehood or lack thereof of the enemy combatants. The overlying principals of a nations right to defend itself do not require it to first check national status of each enemy combatant prior to engaging an aggressor in self defense.

You'd have to show that non citizens are granted protection under Israeli law rather than they fall under the Geneva Conventions; before the law you managed to dig up ( nice find by the way ) applied.

I also notice there is no consensus in law of this forced repatriation issue. Its pretty much a flip of the coin.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall,  et al,
> 
> There may be a provision.  These actions are usually an irrevocable process.
> 
> ...







 In the case of many Palestinians they will take on Palestinian citizenship that does not require them to carry any I.D. papers. In effect giving them dual nationality making it easy for Israel to deport them to Palestine (gaza)


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 22, 2016)

I'd be OK sending them to Gaza. Just open gate and insert.

Be real easy AND might even satisfy those who think Israel is somehow responsible for who takes the little darlings.


----------



## Shusha (Mar 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> To my knowledge, I am completely unaware of any Arab Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip that are technically stateless.
> 
> It would have to be a very, very special case for Israel to "legally" _(under any provision of law)_ compel or force action to deport, transfer, exile or otherwise expel any Arab-Palestinians from a place within the designated occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) to a place outside the oPt.  They are citizens of the State of Palestine.
> 
> ...



Rocco,

Would you be able to outline your opinion on the citizenship of the parties to the conflict (other than those who are obviously Israeli citizens) from 1925 ish through 1988?  

Was there a time when some would have been considered "stateless"?


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 22, 2016)

I'm finding legal precedence right and left for forced repatriation. The US and allies did it in WW2 with Operation Keelhaul ;--)

Completely ignoring all complaints of refoulment

That particular case even went to court where the plaintiff lost ;--)

Also see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...7ajG2d_NJPs0OjGn2wQctQ&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Quote 

2. Repatriation

When hostilities cease, prisoners of war shall be repatriated. The duty to repatriate is premised on the fact that repatriation is a return to a normal situation and that it is assumed that in most situations the prisoner of war would want to be repatriated after the cessation of the hostilities.30 Those who refuse to be repatriated can apply for asylum in the detaining State, as described in Section III (B)(4), infra.31 


End Quote 

I haven't found section III (B)(4), infra.31 yet but I have to go to work so oh well. 

But long story short the host nation is not required to offer asylum to combatants although a combatant may apply for it as described in that section I don't have time to look up at the moment 

Anyone care to dig that up while I'm slaving away ?


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 22, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I'm finding legal precedence right and left for forced repatriation. The US and allies did it in WW2 with Operation Keelhaul ;--)
> 
> Completely ignoring all complaints of refoulment
> 
> ...








 Here you go it is on page 19




4.  Duty of States to prevent subversive acts directed at other States 
States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State.101 States shall not tolerate foreign nationals being involved in subversive activities against any other State, including their country of origin, and using their territory to plan or wage attacks against another State.102 The host State has a responsibility to prevent such acts.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2016)

Shusha,  et al,

This is a pretty straight forward question.



Shusha said:


> Would you be able to outline your opinion on the citizenship of the parties to the conflict (other than those who are obviously Israeli citizens) from 1925 ish through 1988?
> 
> Was there a time when some would have been considered "stateless"?


*(COMMENT)*

I'll do the best that I can.

Jordan and West Bank:

•  15 May 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.  While still part of the Mandate for Palestine _(Article 26 of the Mandate)_, the people between the Jordan River and the border of Mesopotamia _(another British Mandate)_ were citizens of the Emarate.  Prior to that 1923, these people were citizens of the Civil Administration of Palestine _(AKA:  The Government of Palestine)_ under the Administration of the Mandatory.

•  Between 1925 to 1948, the People of the West Bank were citizens under the established successor government, provided for by the Allied Powers, to the Ottoman/Turkish Empire _(followed by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration)_ following the surrender of all rights and title over the territories to the Allied Powers.

•  22 March 1946, the Mandatory Power _(His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India)_,  by the Treaty of Alliance, recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State, ending the British mandate, and (one Monarch to another) recognized His Highness The Amir (Abdullah) as the sovereign thereof.  On 25 May 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the *Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*.  The people of that former territory under Mandate became citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom; a status that holds true to this day.

On 3 April 1949, a General Armistice Agreement was concluded between the Hashemite Kingdom and Israel.  The people of the West Bank were came under the effective control of the Hashemite Kingdom.  Approximately a year later, on 11 April 1950, the representatives of the Palestinian people in the West Bank joined with the Parliament of Jordan and voted to be annexed into Hashemite Kingdom proper.  This was known as the "Unification of the Two-Banks, and All the West Bank inhabitance automatically became citizens of Jordan Citizens.

In October 1974, the Seventh Arab Summit Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco, affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.  But no independent state was created.  Thus, the West Bank Population remained Jordanian.

On 31 July 1988, HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank and politically abandon the territory to the Israeli Forces which had effective control at that time.  The territory was no longer under Jordanian sovereignty (terra nullius); AND Israel must have effectively occupied the territory.  At this point, the Arab Palestinians were "stateless" but under the protection of Israel --- with their citizenship effectively withdrawn by the Hashemite Kingdom.

On 15 November 1988, the PLO proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif); without an enforceable diplomatic objection by the Israelis.  Thus, the people of the occupied Palestinians Territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) became citizens of the State of Palestine under the sole representation of the PLO.​
Egypt and Gaza Strip:


•  Between 1925 to 1948, the People of the Gaza Strip were citizens under the established successor government, provided for by the Allied Powers, to the Ottoman/Turkish Empire _(followed by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration)_ following the surrender of all rights and title over the territories to the Allied Powers.

•  On 22 September 1948, the All Palestine Government (APG), under the encouragement of the Mandatory Power, attempted to Declare Independence over the entirety of the pre-May 1948 territory under the administration of the Mandate for Palestine.  

• On 24 February 1949, Effectively resulting in the limited jurisdiction over the Egyptian Military Governorship over Gaza.  Arab Palestinians answering to the APG, theoretically became citizens of the APG; under the protection of the Egyptian Military.  The APG was dissolved in 1959, and the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip became remained protectorates of the Egyptians.  

•  On 26 March 1979, Egypt and Israel signed a formal treaty to establish peace and "normal and friendly relations;" effectively ending the war between the two countries.  The Armistice Line was dissolved and a permanent international border established.  Israel assumed the duties of the Occupation Authority.  The Arab Palestinian maintain the protected persons status under the effective control until the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 1988.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Mar 22, 2016)

The Nazis tried to claim that parts of occupied territory were controlled by "partisans" therefore they could not be the "occupying power" responsible for not adhering to international law regarding the occupied population.  This was found to be incorrect in the Nuremberg "Hostages" case which concluded:  "....While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant...."

http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Hostage Case090901mit deckblatt.pdf

The Jews have shown that they can, at any time assume physical control of Gaza a section of Palestine.  Hence, Gaza is occupied under international law, even if we disregard the fact that Israel controls the air space, territorial sea and land border.  Not mention the fact that Israel collects taxes in Gaza.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 22, 2016)

As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians.  A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan.  Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation.  It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" ,  was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

The virtual victim routine that pro-Palestinians play is never going to be that effective.   The attempt, by the Arab Palestinians that actually had NAZI political and military associations with the NAZIs, to compare Jewish and Israeli activities with those of the NAZIs is simply an invalid analogy.



montelatici said:


> The Nazis tried to claim that parts of occupied territory were controlled by "partisans" therefore they could not be the "occupying power" responsible for not adhering to international law regarding the occupied population.  This was found to be incorrect in the Nuremberg "Hostages" case which concluded:  "....While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant...."
> 
> http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Hostage Case090901mit deckblatt.pdf
> 
> The Jews have shown that they can, at any time assume physical control of Gaza a section of Palestine.  Hence, Gaza is occupied under international law, even if we disregard the fact that Israel controls the air space, territorial sea and land border.  Not mention the fact that Israel collects taxes in Gaza.


*(COMMENT)*

Not that it actually means anything, but the control of all  operational forces, on both sides, is temporary.  All Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist, and Asymmetric Forces evolve and have a life cycle.  On a different scale, the anti-Jihadist, counter-insurgency, anti-Terrorist and suppression units, and the forces that detect, exploit and neutralize dangerous asymmetric activities also have  successive life cycles.

On the matter of "Occupation:" 

*Occupation and international humanitarian law: Questions and Answers*
*04-08-2004*
A series of questions and answers by the ICRC's legal team on what defines occupation, the laws that apply, how people are protected, and the ICRC's role.​*1.  What is occupation? *

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as _jus ad bellum_. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.​*4.  When does occupation come to an end? *

The normal way for an occupation to e nd is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes " actually placed under the authority of the hostile army " (H R, art. 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.​
It is an invalid argument that Israel can establish effective control over the Gaza Strip at will.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.  At no time, and during no engagement has the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) actually been able to achieve its goal:

•  To stop rocket fire into Israel and weapons smuggling into the Gaza strip.
•  To stop Hamas’ incessant rocket attacks against Israel’s civilians.​
The law is quite clear, without regard to pro-Palestinian interpretation:  The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.



montelatici said:


> As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians.  A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan.  Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation.  It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" ,  was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.


*(COMMENT)*

They have been many Arab Palestinians that asked me:  What happened?  I was a Jordanian one day, --- stateless the next.



			
				EXCERPT Unification of the Two Banks said:
			
		

> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> *SOURCE: * *Unification of the Two Banks History of Jordan  Request Rejected of the Two Banks*





			
				FEBRUARY 1 said:
			
		

> *Jordan: Stop Withdrawing Nationality from Palestinian-Origin Citizens]*[/SIZE]
> *Authorities Arbitrarily Withdraw Nationality From More Than 2,700; Hundreds of Thousands at Risk*
> (Amman) - Jordan should stop withdrawing nationality arbitrarily from Jordanians of Palestinian origin, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Authorities stripped more than 2,700 of these Jordanians of their nationality between 2004 and 2008, and the practice continued in 2009, Human Rights Watch said.
> 
> ...



Jordan, in essence made a decision to cut their losses and to drop the albatross that bit the hand that feed it.  And Jordan dropped the Arab-Palestinians rights, freedoms and responsibilities enjoyed by all Jordanians --- was sanctioned by the Arab League; in fact, it was enthusiastically endorsed to set the West Bank Arab Palestinians into that condition.

Most  Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2016)

montelatici said:


> As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians.  A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan.  Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation.  It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" ,  was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.


Good point thanks.

A paradoxical legal status had emerged in regard to Palestinian nationality in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 1948. Shortly after invading and occupying the area of Palestine that lies to the west of the Jordan River, Jordan decided by an amendment to the Trans-Jordan Nationality Law, enacted on 13 December 1949, to confer its nationality on Palestinian residents in the West Bank. The Jordanian Nationality Law of 1954 had reaffirmed the status of Jordanian citizens on these residents of the West Bank, which was annexed to Jordan in 1950.* Here, the conferment of Jordanian nationality had no effect under international law because Jordan had no right whatsoever to annex that part of Palestine. * Such conferment produced effects only under the Jordanian law and not in accordance with international law.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​
The Palestinians retained their Palestinian citizenship and nationality. It was still Palestinian territory but under occupation.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> The virtual victim routine that pro-Palestinians play is never going to be that effective.   The attempt, by the Arab Palestinians that actually had NAZI political and military associations with the NAZIs, to compare Jewish and Israeli activities with those of the NAZIs is simply an invalid analogy.
> 
> ...



No, the Arab League did not approve the annexation, in fact, there were moves to expel Jordan from the league.  Only the UK and the US recognized the annexation.  The Palestinians that were given citizenship did not enjoy equal rights in Jordan, Bedouins (real Jordanians) had more rights to jobs and position in the military. Plus, Palestinians were relegated to refugee camps in Jordan.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 22, 2016)

Well this was an interesting read 

From 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sttzrmXHpwDr74f3GMsyvA&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc
Quote 

*Introductory text*


Combatants are members of armed forces. The main feature of their status in international armed conflicts is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into enemy hands, they become prisoners of war who may not be punished for having directly participated in hostilities. It is often considered that customary law allows a detaining power to deny its own nationals prisoner-of-war status, even if they fall into its hands as members of enemy armed forces. In any event, such persons may be punished under domestic law for their mere participation in hostilities against their own country.

Combatants have an obligation to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population. If they violate IHL they must be punished, but they do not lose their combatant status and, if captured by the enemy, remain entitled to prisoner-of-war status, except if they have violated their obligation to distinguish themselves.

Persons who have lost combatant status or never had it, but nevertheless directly participate in hostilities, may be referred to as "unprivileged combatants" – because they do not have the combatant's privilege to commit acts of hostility – or as "unlawful combatants" – because their acts of hostility are not permitted by IHL. The status of such persons has given rise to controversy.

Some argue that they must perforce be civilians. This argument is based on the letter of IHL treaties. In the conduct of hostilities, Art. 50(1) of Protocol I defines civilians as all those who are not "referred to in Article 4(A)(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol". Once they have fallen into enemy hands, Art. 4 of Convention IV defines as protected civilians all those who fulfil the nationality requirements and are not protected by Convention III. This would mean that any enemy who is not protected by Convention III falls under Convention IV.

Those who oppose that view argue that a person who does not fulfil the requirements for combatant status is an "unlawful combatant" and belongs to a third category. Like "lawful combatants", it is claimed, such "unlawful combatants" may be attacked until they surrender or are otherwise hors de combat and may be detained without judicial decision. The logic of this argument is that those who do not comply with the conditions set for a status should not be privileged compared to those who do.

Those who insist on the complementarity and exclusivity of combatant and civilian status reply that lawful combatants can be easily identified, based on objective criteria, which they will normally not deny (i.e. membership in the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict), while the membership and past behaviour of unprivileged combatants and the future threat they represent can only be determined individually. As "civilians", unprivileged combatants may be attacked while they unlawfully directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, Convention IV does not bar their punishment for unlawful participation in hostilities. In addition, it permits administrative detention for imperative security reasons. From a teleological perspective, it is feared that the concept of "unlawful combatants", denied the protection of Convention IV, could constitute an easy escape category for detaining powers, as the Geneva Conventions contain no rule about the treatment of someone who is neither a combatant nor a civilian (see, however, P I, Art. 75).

End Quote 

Having lost civilian status and there being no agreement on forced repatriation particularly as a form of judicial punishment there seems little doubt that Israel would be within its rights to repatriate stateless persons outside its boundaries


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 23, 2016)

montelatici said:


> The Nazis tried to claim that parts of occupied territory were controlled by "partisans" therefore they could not be the "occupying power" responsible for not adhering to international law regarding the occupied population.  This was found to be incorrect in the Nuremberg "Hostages" case which concluded:  "....While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant...."
> 
> http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Hostage Case090901mit deckblatt.pdf
> 
> The Jews have shown that they can, at any time assume physical control of Gaza a section of Palestine.  Hence, Gaza is occupied under international law, even if we disregard the fact that Israel controls the air space, territorial sea and land border.  Not mention the fact that Israel collects taxes in Gaza.








 NOPE they have not shown that at all, if they could then hamas would be a stain on the floor by now and the land would be under Israeli military control. They can invade at any time due to the constant bombardment of illegal weapons that are classed as a war crime, but they can never gain full control of the land


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 23, 2016)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...







 All that you have wrote shows that the arab muslims have no intention of abiding by any laws other than their own. And still you support and defend them more than you support and defend America


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > As far as annexation by Jordan, there was never a vote by the Palestinians.  A few "leaders", hand picked by the UK and Jordan "asked" that the West Bank be incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan.  Only the UK and the U.S. recognized the annexation.  It was never recognized by the UN. King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" ,  was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.
> ...







 And who granted Palestine ownership of this land without the sovereign owners permission ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 23, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


The Palestinians were the owners. The LoN and the Mandate were merely trustees.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Then produce the relevant documentation that makes them the owners, bearing in mind that the Jews owned 22% of Palestine centred on the coastal plain and Jerusalem. The arab muslims inhabited 78% that was east of the Jordan river and part of Mesopotamia ( Syria )

 Now find me the link granting the Palestinians ownership, and it must state that Palestine was given the land


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 23, 2016)

And speaking of repatriation 

Quote 

UN Resolution 194 of 1948. Article 12.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also states that: ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their right to enter his own country

End Quote 

See

Legal provisions, principles, guidelines and agreements — Forced Migration Online

Thing to remember is that in 1948 the Jordanian citizenship law of 1928 applied to all Arabs living in the mandated area. 

Jordanian nationality law ( which by the way smacks of racism and bigotry ) 

Quote 

*Article 3*

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;

(2)Any person who, *not being Jewish*, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;

(3)Any person whose father holds Jordanian nationality;

(4)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of a mother holding Jordanian nationality and of a father of unknown nationality or of a Stateless father or whose filiation is not established;

(5)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of unknown parents, as a foundling in the Kingdom shall be considered born in the Kingdom pending evidence to the contrary;

(6)All members of the Bedouin tribes of the North mentioned in paragraph (j) of article 25 of the Provisional Election Law, No. 24 of 1960, who were effectively living in the territories annexed to the Kingdom in 1930.

End Quote 

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...JuDxArHtpybUI-ksAwkp-A&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Also see 

Citizenship and the State in the Middle East, p. 210.

Quote 

In 1949, the Jordanian Council of Ministers added an article to their Citizenship Law of 1928 that read

All those who at the time when this Law goes into effect habitually reside in Transjordan or in the Western part [of the Jordan] which is being administered by [the Kingdom], and who were holders of Palestinian citizenship, shall be deemed as Jordanians enjoying all rights of Jordanians and bearing all the attendant obligations.

End Quote 

Which if anyone is following along means that Jordan stripping the Arab Muslims of Israel of their citizenship was illegal 

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...iNygvrIzoVVFzGA4pUHYdg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Quote 


More than half of the 6.3 million population of Jordan is of Palestinian origin-that is, from areas west of the River Jordan, including the West Bank, today's Israel, and Gaza. With the exception of persons from Gaza, the vast majority of those persons of Palestinian origin have Jordanian citizenship. However, since 1988, and especially over the past few years, the Jordanian government has been arbitrarily and without notice withdrawing Jordanian nationality from its citizens of Palestinian origin, making them stateless. For many of them this means they are again stateless Palestinians as they were before 1950.

Some Jordanian officials have said they are doing so in order to forestall supposed Israeli designs to colonize the West Bank, by maintaining the birthright of Palestinians to live in the West Bank. Yet the real reason may be Jordan's desire to be able to rid itself of hundreds of thousands of Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin whom Jordan could then forcibly return to the West Bank or Israel as part of a settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem caused by the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars. At least that appeared to be the interpretation of a high-ranking Ministry of Interior official who in July 2009 said that certain Jordanians of Palestinian origin would remain Jordanian nationals only until such time that a refugee settlement had been reached.

So far, Jordan has withdrawn its nationality from thousands of its citizens of Palestinian origin-over 2,700 between 2004 and 2008 alone. It has done so, in the individual cases Human Rights Watch identified, in an arbitrary manner and in violation of Jordan's nationality law of 1954. Under that law Palestinian residents of the West Bank in 1949 or thereafter received full Jordanian nationality following Jordan's incorporation of the West Bank in April 1950.

End Quote 

Ergo it was illegal for Jordan to arbitrarily remove citizenship from its own citizens. 

Just exploring who's responsible for who within the conflict. 

Looks like all Arab Muslim combatants legal or illegal could be considered Jordanian citizens and repatriated to Jordan. 

Not that its Israel's responsibility to figure out where they end up but its a start.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 23, 2016)

Legal precedent of forced repatriation

Opperation Keelhaul

The Yalta conference

Forced repatriation of Cossacks post WWII

All Israel needs to do is determine who qualifies for POW status as outlined in the Geneva Conventions and throw the bums out.

Quote

*PRISONERS OF WAR*


ARTICLE 4 [ Link ]
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8 [ Link ] , 10 [ Link ] , 15 [ Link ] , 30, fifth paragraph [ Link ] , 58 [ Link ] -67, 92 [ Link ] , 126 [ Link ] and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 [ Link ] of the present Convention.

End Quote


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 24, 2016)

Well this was an interesting read

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiSrNiTotrLAhWFgYMKHUnsBkwQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/book-chapter/the-combatants-pow-book-chapter.htm&usg=AFQjCNFisn-uPC8_Bc0NeurCRvs9D5abMg&sig2=5ZegILlFaiQJnTeCelMu9Q&bvm=bv.117604692,d.amc


Quote

Combatants are members of armed forces. The main feature of their status in international armed conflicts is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into enemy hands, they become prisoners of war who may not be punished for having directly participated in hostilities. It is often considered that customary law allows a detaining power to deny its own nationals prisoner-of-war status, even if they fall into its hands as members of enemy armed forces. In any event, such persons may be punished under domestic law for their mere participation in hostilities against their own country.

Combatants have an obligation to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population. If they violate IHL they must be punished, but they do not lose their combatant status and, if captured by the enemy, remain entitled to prisoner-of-war status, except if they have violated their obligation to distinguish themselves.

Persons who have lost combatant status or never had it, but nevertheless directly participate in hostilities, may be referred to as "unprivileged combatants" – because they do not have the combatant's privilege to commit acts of hostility – or as "unlawful combatants" – because their acts of hostility are not permitted by IHL. The status of such persons has given rise to controversy.

Some argue that they must perforce be civilians. This argument is based on the letter of IHL treaties. In the conduct of hostilities, Art. 50(1) of Protocol I defines civilians as all those who are not "referred to in Article 4(A)(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol". Once they have fallen into enemy hands, Art. 4 of Convention IV defines as protected civilians all those who fulfil the nationality requirements and are not protected by Convention III. This would mean that any enemy who is not protected by Convention III falls under Convention IV.

Those who oppose that view argue that a person who does not fulfil the requirements for combatant status is an "unlawful combatant" and belongs to a third category. Like "lawful combatants", it is claimed, such "unlawful combatants" may be attacked until they surrender or are otherwise hors de combat and may be detained without judicial decision. The logic of this argument is that those who do not comply with the conditions set for a status should not be privileged compared to those who do.

Those who insist on the complementarity and exclusivity of combatant and civilian status reply that lawful combatants can be easily identified, based on objective criteria, which they will normally not deny (i.e. membership in the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict), while the membership and past behaviour of unprivileged combatants and the future threat they represent can only be determined individually. As "civilians", unprivileged combatants may be attacked while they unlawfully directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, Convention IV does not bar their punishment for unlawful participation in hostilities. In addition, it permits administrative detention for imperative security reasons. From a teleological perspective, it is feared that the concept of "unlawful combatants", denied the protection of Convention IV, could constitute an easy escape category for detaining powers, as *the Geneva Conventions contain no rule about the treatment of someone who is neither a combatant nor a civilian*

End Quote

Argo again Israel would be free to expel unprivaledged combatants. The requirement only being that detainees be delivered to the point of embarkation in good condition.

ICRC service


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Well this was an interesting read
> 
> From
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiSrNiTotrLAhWFgYMKHUnsBkwQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/book-chapter/the-combatants-pow-book-chapter.htm&usg=AFQjCNFisn-uPC8_Bc0NeurCRvs9D5abMg&sig2=5ZegILlFaiQJnTeCelMu9Q&bvm=bv.117604692,d.amc
> ...


which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population.​
What if you are a civilian defending yourself from military attack?

What would be the proper form of dress?


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 25, 2016)

This is why I don't usually respond to your posts Timmore. 

You just ignore whats being posted and ask question thats already been answered. Like two posts ago. 

Quote

*PRISONERS OF WAR*


ARTICLE 4 [ Link ]
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8 [ Link ] , 10 [ Link ] , 15 [ Link ] , 30, fifth paragraph [ Link ] , 58 [ Link ] -67, 92 [ Link ] , 126 [ Link ] and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 [ Link ] of the present Convention.

End Quote


----------



## montelatici (Mar 25, 2016)

Well, since the territory is legally occupied by Israel, your nonsense as usual, makes no sense.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 25, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Well, since the territory is legally occupied by Israel, your nonsense as usual, makes no sense.



well I'm glad you can admit its legally occupied.

If you read the articles you'll see that it actually doesn't matter if the territory is about to be occupied or is occupied. The only difference is if the combatant is legal or not, but they are still a combatant and as such considered a POW. Or could be. Its also possible they qualify as a unprotected combatant. Doesn't matter, Israel still has a right to expel them from its territory.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Well this was an interesting read
> ...






They should still wear something that sets them apart as unarmed civilians. That is International law.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Those are the laws of war.

What kind of war is it when one side has an army attacking civilians on the other side?

Palestine has never had an army. Whose uniform should they wear? What would be wrong with a civilian "uniform" if that is what they are?


----------



## montelatici (Mar 26, 2016)

Erdogan would probably give Boston a job.  Under Boston's crazy interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, Erdogan would have the right to expel most of the Kurds from Turkey.  

*"Suruc massacre: 'Turkish student' was suicide bomber*


The attacker, named by local media as Seyh Abdurrahman Alagoz, was an ethnic Kurd from Turkey's south-eastern province of Adiyaman...."

Suruc massacre: 'Turkish student' was suicide bomber - BBC News


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Well actually, the Islamic terrorists of Hamas have the "izzy brigades" as its armed wing. So yes, there is an Islamic terrorist army, one of cowards, or rather, Arabs-Moslems.

Even so, no one expects your Islamic terrorist heroes to wear uniforms when they attack Israel. It makes for a better propaganda campaign to hide behind women and children as Israel retaliates for acts of war perpetrated by Islamic terrorists and those terrorists use the bodies of civilians for cheap currency on the nightly broadcast from al-jizz.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 26, 2016)

I've asked this question before of the supporters of Israel.  What successful national liberation movement should the Palestinians emulate to facilitate their national liberation?  The South African ANC? The Algerian FLN?  The original IRA? Haganah?  Irgun?  Viet Cong?

Or, do you believe that the Palestinians should just accept Jewish rule without enfranchisement.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie,  et al,

This is a question with two-sides.



Hollie said:


> Well actually, the Islamic terrorists of Hamas have the "izzy brigades" as its armed wing. So yes, there is an Islamic terrorist army, one of cowards, or rather, Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> Even so, no one expects your Islamic terrorist heroes to wear uniforms when they attack Israel. It makes for a better propaganda campaign fir them to hide behind women and children as Israel retaliates and use the bodies of civilians for cheap currency on the nightly broadcast from al-jizz.


*(COMMENT)*

Who are the parties to the conflict.  This makes a big difference.  

•  To be an "armed force," there must be a "chain of command."  This becomes  an issue with the chaos of the State of Palestine 1988 Government.  Does the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) answer to the central government; or not?

∆  The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades  
∆  Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine [AKA: Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)]
∆  Al-Quds Brigades or the _Jerusalem Brigades, _of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)​•  The importance of this is these non shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.  This is critical in the ability to enforce Article 51 criteria which the international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations and the use of human shields as illegal under international law.​Whenever the Palestinians incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces _(including militia and volunteer forces)_ it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Article 1 of the Hague Regulations provides that the laws, rights and duties of war apply; fulfilling four conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.​In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."​
There is no central government authority in the Government of Palestine in which all the Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist, or Asymmetric Forces take orders from and are responsible for these forces.  (See Item #1)

While in Palestinian Parade cases, these opposing forces meet Item #2 and 3 - Uniform Criteria, it is not clear at all that while conducting military operations in densely populated areas of Gaza, that is is true. 

*(CLEAR)*

In the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, there are actually two separate and distinct Palestines.   There is the governing body of Gaza, and there is the governing the West Bank.  Nowhere is it more clear than in the command and control of Hostile Arab Palestinian Forces _(the generic name for all the various jihadist, insurgents, terrorist and asymmetric activities)_.   It is verifiable by asking one question:

•  When rockets and mortars are being fired from Gaza into Israel, --- what central authority can order operators to cease-fire?​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Mar 26, 2016)

Well, the Palestinian resistance are not different than the ANC and many other past and present national liberation organizations. Why you insist on demanding a different behavior of the Palestinians is puzzling.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Well, the Palestinian resistance are not different than the ANC and many other past and present national liberation organizations. Why you insist on demanding a different behavior of the Palestinians is puzzling.



Well, actually, you're befuddled. The Hamas Charter is a look into the gaping maw of islamo-fascism. The Charter speaks specifically to the re-conquest of all lands under control of the Infidel and speaks specifically to the islamo-concept of _waqf_.

In Arabic, _waqf_ can literally mean prevention, restraint, or retention. In Islam, a waqf is any property that has been given for the benefit of Moslems, in perpetuity, and to please muhammud (swish). It is essentially making land, or other material, muhammud's (swish) property, not to be controlled by anyone. It is an important part of sharia law, and has several purposes. In this context, we are concerned with its ramifications in connection with land—particularly Israeli land.

In Islam, the war of jihad is holy (although it is not seen as war by Moslems) because it is for the purpose of expanding muhammud's domain. It is commanded of the faithful, and it is an honor as well as a duty. According to the sharia, territories which are gained through jihad become waqf, and cannot thereafter be given up. They become, literally, an inseverable part of muhammud's dominion, for the sole welfare of the ummah (the Moslem community). If territories acquired by Islam are taken by infidels, they must be retaken in jihad—today, tomorrow, sooner or later. It is a religious obligation.

Your usual attempts to equate Islam's jihad with a "resistance" movement is both false and ignorant.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Hollie,  et al,
> 
> This is a question with two-sides.
> 
> ...



Which makes them an unlawful or unprivileged combatant. 

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...VewX6oJxYbVPfgT9yzXkjw&bvm=bv.117868183,d.amc

While the argument seems to rest on which GC applies there seems no argument that illegal/unlawful and unprivileged combatants are covered. 

Quote

The legal protection of unlawful combatants under GC IV

Given that unlawful combatants as defined in the previous section do not meet the conditions to qualify as prisoners of war and thus are not protected by GC III, this analysis will first examine whether unlawful combatants fall within the personal scope of application of GC IV. It will then consider to what partic- ular protections they are entitled once they are in enemy hands. Lastly, the implications of the law on the conduct of hostilities will be briefly discussed.

In accordance with the rules of interpretation of international treaties, the main focus will be on the “ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose”.10 Subsidiarily, the travaux préparatoires and legal writings will also be analysed.

Personal field of application of GC IV as defined in Article 4 thereof

The personal field of application of GC IV is defined in the following terms. Article 4 (1) specifies:

“Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”

This definition seems all-embracing. According to this paragraph any person would be protected once he/she finds himself/herself in the hands of a Party to a conflict or occupying Power. Only nationals of that Party/Power are excluded.11 The very broad wording of the paragraph, read in isolation, would not only include civilians but even members of the armed forces.12 


End Quote


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> And speaking of repatriation
> 
> Quote
> 
> ...


*Article 3*

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;​----------------------
The Jordanian Nationality Law of 1954 had reaffirmed the status of Jordanian citizens on these residents of the West Bank, which was annexed to Jordan in 1950. *Here, the conferment of Jordanian nationality had no effect under international law because Jordan had no right whatsoever to annex that part of Palestine.*

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​


----------



## montelatici (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the Palestinian resistance are not different than the ANC and many other past and present national liberation organizations. Why you insist on demanding a different behavior of the Palestinians is puzzling.
> ...



So somehow, the Palestinian resistance movement is specifically different than other resistance movements such as the Algerian resistance for example.  I have read the Hamas Covenant, and I can't find the part where it states anything about the reconquest of "all lands" under control of the infidel. It talks about raising its banner over Palestine and defeating the Zionist invader.  If you can find the statement you refer to please point it out, here is a link to the document:

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

In short, it does not differ at all from the Likud Charter, Likud also being a political party like Hamas to wit:

_"a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace."
_
Original Party Platform of the Likud Party | Jewish Virtual Library

So both extremist parties, the Palestinian one and the Jewish one want all the land.  What a surprise.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Hollie,  et al,
> 
> This is a question with two-sides.
> 
> ...



Thought-provoking, Rocco.

I suppose there's something of an issue with applying Hague convention proscriptions of "conventional" warfare to Islamic terrorism.  I'll make the point that Islamic thought has for centuries divided the world into _Dar al-Islam_ (the House of Submission) and _Dar al-Harb_ (The House of War). Islam and its allegiants have *always* regarded themselves as at war with the rest of us. It's a fundamental aspect of Islamic doctrine well supported by the _koran,_ the various _ahadith,_ and the proclamations of imams and Islamic scholars.

Islamic terrorism is the spearhead force for Islam's worldwide _jihad._ The ever growing numbers of Moslems who've been allowed ingress to Western nations are the forces in echelon -- activists willing to riot and demonstrate -- and forces of occupation -- large numbers of Moslems concentrated into exclaves in which Islamist ideology rules _de facto._ Their logistical support is provided by the twenty-two or so nations currently under Islamic regimes, and by covert sympathizers in many other lands.

Finally.... finally, to get to your comments, I would suggest that Hamas meets the requirement of a central government (acknowledging your observation that there are two - competing governments in the disputed territories) as Hamas was an elected governing body.

The "chain of command" requirement is a bit more difficult to quantify. Whether the islamic terrorist groups you noted:

The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades 
Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine [AKA: Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)]
Al-Quds Brigades or the _Jerusalem Brigades, _of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

are subordinate to some Islamic Terrorist General Staff somewhere In the bowels of Hamas planning out attacks with completely conscious, completely intentional purposes is unlikely. If the Islamic terrorists and their dispatchers within Hamas have an articulated theory of warfare, it's more likely to be _Inshallah_ (cf. the Latin _Deus vult_) than any version of the above.

Regarding the Hague regulations you posted:

*Article 1 of the Hague Regulations* provides that the laws, rights and duties of war apply; fulfilling four conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


1. As applied against the islamic terrorist groups noted above, not fulfilled

2. Not fulfilled. Noting however, the ability of various islamic terrorist groups Hamas, the "Hizzbullies", etc., to somehow manage the means to acquire uniforms for Islamic terrorist parades.

3. Requirement fulfilled.

4. Not fulfiled.

To address the following:


_one question:_
_
• When rockets and mortars are being fired from Gaza into Israel, --- what central authority can order operators to cease-fire?_


It appears that there is no such central authority. And, I think more importantly, whatever we may wish to call a central authority as it relates to Hamas as a "governing body", we must also understand that Hamas materially supports and promotes rockets and mortars being fired from Gaza into Israel. As such, they are as complicit in acts of Islamic terrorism as the groups noted previously.

Warfare by way of islamic terrorism works by way of an infiltration-oriented army vs. any conventional land war between nation-states. The key to confronting islamic terrorism is to understand that Hague Conventions of war don't necessarily apply in an era of global islamic terrorism. There needs to be a certain removing of the intellectual and emotional barriers that cause us to insist that Islamic terrorism is ideologically distasteful to the great majority of Moslems and has nothing to do with Islam _per se._


----------



## montelatici (Mar 26, 2016)

Islamic terrorism carried out by hostile Muslims that have invaded Europe has no logical connection to a national resistance movement resisting a European invader in Palestine.  The European Jews invaded Palestine just as the North African and Middle Eastern Muslims are invading Europe.  Were I a European, I certainly would resist Muslims that intended to colonize and create an Islamic state in Europe, just as the Christians and Muslims have resisted the colonization by Europeans and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

I can't see why the fanatics can't understand a dynamic that is so clear to anyone that is a neutral.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


You can do what you usually do - hope to plead ignorance, but that won't help you.

You need to keep up with lessons at your madrassah when such Islamist concepts as waqf and jihad are discussed. As you're rocking back and forth reciting your Koranic verses, spend some time and read the Hamas Charter. Listen to what the various Islamic terrorist organizations are babbling about and understand that actions speak with the utmost clarity.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie,  et al,
> ...


_• When rockets and mortars are being fired from Gaza into Israel, ---​_
Say so. Nobody has proven that to be true.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 26, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Islamic terrorism carried out by hostile Muslims that have invaded Europe has no logical connection to a national resistance movement resisting a European invader in Palestine.  The European Jews invaded Palestine just as the North African and Middle Eastern Muslims are invading Europe.  Were I a European, I certainly would resist Muslims that intended to colonize and create an Islamic state in Europe, just as the Christians and Muslims have resisted the colonization by Europeans and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
> 
> I can't see why the fanatics can't understand a dynamic that is so clear to anyone that is a neutral.



You are daft







There can be no national resistance movement when there is no nation or nationality involved.

European returnees make up roughly 30% of the Judaic population vs the nearly 95% of Arab Muslims that colonized the fledgling Israel in the early to mid 20th century.






I can't see why the fanatics can't understand a dynamic that is so clear to anyone that is a neutral.

The simple reality is that Israel should toughen up a little and enforce the GC


----------



## montelatici (Mar 26, 2016)

I thought we were discussing Israel/Palestine.  I read the Hamas Covenant, it appears you have not.  It also appears you haven't read the Likud Charter.

As far as my thoughts on Islamic invasion, you can see an example here in the proper Forum Section:

Should Belgium Take Measures Like Syria Against Islamic Terrorists ?

Of course I was called a bigot.  But then I only deal in facts, unlike you Zionist propagandists.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore,   et al,

I think you have made a mistake here.



P F Tinmore said:


> UN Resolution 194 of 1948. Article 12.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also states that: ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their right to enter his
> 
> *Article 3*
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

UN Resolution 194 (III) does not speak to Citizenship or Nationality; not is it binding or law.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not speak to the power of a sovereign to dissolve parliament and break all ties with the West Bank.  No does is speak to the power of a Sovereign to annul any given law, to include the Nationality Law of 1954.  I'm not even sure what the status is of the 1954 Law (half century old now).

I don't think the Hashemite Kingdom permits or entertains the interpretation of their immigration decisions.  Generally speaking, the first wave of Palestinians came to Jordan in 1948; and Jordan recognized them, under the UN Convention and Protocols relation to the Status of Refugees, as refugees.  The second big wave of Palestinians came after the 1967 War.  The Hashemite Kingdom made a decision to consider these Palestinians as  "Displaced Persons;"  a distinct made when the King announced the 1988 disengagement from the West Bank.  




			
				EXCERPT:  The Status of Palestinians in Jordan and the Anomaly of Holding a Jordanian Passport said:
			
		

> *Jordanian Citizenship*
> In Jordan, not all passports grant the same privileges. Following the 1988 judicial and administrative disengagement from the occupied territories, new regulations were enacted that rendered the passports of Palestinians living in the West Bank temporary [4]. In practical terms, this designation meant that the new temporary passports were now only valid as a travel document–it no longer conferred citizenship and it no longer had a national number. This situation created an anomaly, “a counterintuitive result whereby the holders of a Passport [with no national number] have far fewer rights (in fact none) compared to the holder of a mere [Jordanian] Identity Card, which includes a national number” [4]. To better understand the difference between a Jordanian holding a passport with a national number and one that possesses a temporary passport without a number, it is important to examine a few key instances in which basic rights are violated.
> *SOURCE:* The Status of Palestinians in Jordan and the Anomaly of Holding a Jordanian Passport


​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Mar 26, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Islamic terrorism carried out by hostile Muslims that have invaded Europe has no logical connection to a national resistance movement resisting a European invader in Palestine.  The European Jews invaded Palestine just as the North African and Middle Eastern Muslims are invading Europe.  Were I a European, I certainly would resist Muslims that intended to colonize and create an Islamic state in Europe, just as the Christians and Muslims have resisted the colonization by Europeans and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
> ...



Please note moderators. Boston is spamming his made up Hasbara chart which is false and without a link to the source.  I then reply with the facts and the source which proves that more than 90% of the migrants between 1920 and 1945 were Jews:





A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

montelatici said:


> I thought we were discussing Israel/Palestine.  I read the Hamas Covenant, it appears you have not.  It also appears you haven't read the Likud Charter.
> 
> As far as my thoughts on Islamic invasion, you can see an example here in the proper Forum Section:
> 
> ...


Some of us were discussing Israel/Pal'istan. You were flailing your Poms Poms for Islamic terrorists.

Read the Hamas Charter. When you come back, raise your hand to ask a question. Your Islamist propaganda is an annoyance.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Islamic terrorism carried out by hostile Muslims that have invaded Europe has no logical connection to a national resistance movement resisting a European invader in Palestine.  The European Jews invaded Palestine just as the North African and Middle Eastern Muslims are invading Europe.  Were I a European, I certainly would resist Muslims that intended to colonize and create an Islamic state in Europe, just as the Christians and Muslims have resisted the colonization by Europeans and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
> ...





+1.
"There can be no national resistance movement when there is no nation or nationality involved."

Great observation!

Instead, we're given "Islamist resistance movement". 

Islam's gee-had knows no territorial boundaries or passage of time. It's about making the religion of Muhammud (swish), imposed on all.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> I think you have made a mistake here.
> 
> ...


You missed the point. The Jordanian Nationality Law was invalid according to international law because it was illegal for Jordan to annex that land.

Just because a (foreign) government does something does not make it legal.

Foreign governments have no authority to change land, borders, or citizenship of a country.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we were discussing Israel/Palestine.  I read the Hamas Covenant, it appears you have not.  It also appears you haven't read the Likud Charter.
> ...



I did read the Hamas Covenant (it's not called charter) and the Likud Charter.  You haven't read either since you lied about what the Hamas Covenant stated, or read propaganda and repeated it.  You see, I've got your number liar.  You can't support your assertions because you are a pathological liar.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 26, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...









1920 and 1945 ? I wasn't aware we were cherrypicking. In which case I'm referring to the years of 1840 to 1950. 






And all links have been provided many times. You just insist on ignoring them ;--)


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,   et al,
> ...



LOL 

NO you missed the point. The UN resolution you quoted is non-binding and as such has no impact on law in any way international or otherwise. IE has no bearing on Jordanian nationality in any way whatsoever ;--)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


What UN resolution did I quote?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie,  et al,

There was a time when, as a young man, I found it much simpler to address these question.

I'm not sure if times were different then --- or if I was much more naive and illiterate --- or if the world became more complicated.



Hollie said:


> Thought-provoking, Rocco.
> 
> I suppose there's something of an issue with applying Hague convention proscriptions of "conventional" warfare to Islamic terrorism.  I'll make the point that Islamic thought has for centuries divided the world into _Dar al-Islam_ (the House of Submission) and _Dar al-Harb_ (The House of War). Islam and its allegiants have *always* regarded themselves as at war with the rest of us. It's a fundamental aspect of Islamic doctrine well supported by the _koran,_ the various _ahadith,_ and the proclamations of imams and Islamic scholars.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I did notice that at the winding end of my career, it was much different than my Vietnam days at the opening.

There was a time when there was no talk of definitions or legal requirements.  You had Fracken BG's (Bad Guys), you had Fracken WBGs (Wild Bad Guys), and you had VSF-BAG w/Gs (Very Serious Fracken --- Bad Ass Guy with Guns).  Today, you have people who will argue that the Palestinians that engaged the Israeli Olympic Team were just freedom fights.  That the Palestinians that hijacked of three jets to Jordan's Dawson Field were heroic.  Or that the Palestinians the rolled an American in a wheelchair off the deck and into the Sea were justified in their actions.  It was not that long ago that the Palestinians were holding a celebration in memory of the suicide bomber that killed civilian women and children as heroic and brave.

Everyone has a different concept of a bad guy.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Oh! The angry Islamist?

Really. Do yourself a favor and read the Hamas Charter. You will find it's largely a reiteration of Islamist ideology that dated to back to ancient Islamist times and tales. It includes all the same pompous claims to gee-had and islamo-supremacy that is spewed out by ISIS, Hamas, the Muslim brotherhood and every other islamo-fascist spokes-beard.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, I did not miss the point.



P F Tinmore said:


> You missed the point. The Jordanian Nationality Law was invalid according to international law because it was illegal for Jordan to annex that land.
> 
> Just because a (foreign) government does something does not make it legal.
> 
> Foreign governments have no authority to change land, borders, or citizenship of a country.


*(COMMENT)*

The West Bank Palestinians sent representative to the Jordanian Parliament and exercised their right to self-determination, to become part of Jordan.

It has always been the radical Islamist that promote conflict that  objected.  They wanted to continue the fight, and to engage in terrorism.  They were never interested in the people and what would better help them.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Do you have a list of the Hamas leaders who endorsed that document?

Just curious.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh ---get with the program.



P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Do you have a list of any HAMAS around in 1950.  You should not have asked this question.  This is a propaganda type trick question.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, I did not miss the point.
> 
> ...


I heard the Jordan hand picked some Palestinian "leaders" who would go along with their scam. The world did not buy it and considered that Jordan held the West Bank in trust.

Like I said, just because a foreign government does something does not make it legal.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh ---get with the program.
> 
> ...


Not at all. Normally documents like charters and constitutions are signed by officials who endorse and validate the document. I am merely asking for that list.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You need to read the Hamas Covenant.  You don't even know it is not a charter. LOL


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh ---get with the program.
> 
> ...



Most of Tinmore's questions either contain a blatantly false premise or are indicative of an inability to follow the topic. 

I tend to ignore most. 

The simple fact that the Jordanians illegally stripped the Arab Muslims of Israel of their Jordanian citizenship for political purposes leaving millions stateless is etched in stone. 

There's really no arguing it. 

The only question is why is this Israel's problem ? Israel, just like any other country has the right to expel hostile forces from its territory. Including the remnant Arab armies AND THEIR DECENDENTS from the 48 war of independence.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



As Rocco noted - get with the program.

Play your own game. Do you have a list of the Hamas leaders who disavowed that document?

Just curious.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Still not doing your homework, LOL. 

Come back after you have read the Charter. LOL


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


I'm not sure there is enough room on the US Constitition for all members of congress to sign it. 

Houston, we have a problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


The so called Hamas Charter was not used in their election campaign nor did it become Palestinian law after their election.

The only ones using it is Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Indeed. Trying out for the Islamic swim team. -  the backstroke?

Indeed, you might want to revise the title of the Hamas Charter to something like "The Happy-Fun Book of We Want To Kill the Jews... But Keep That On The Down-Low"


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You're digging an islamo-hole you can't get out of, tinny.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Of course not, they were all executed and dragged through the streets 

Typical terrorist response to anyone who suggests peace


----------



## Hollie (Mar 26, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Diss the charter and you sleep with the fishes.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Can you imagine sleeping under such a brutal occupation ? 

The Arab Muslim occupation of Israel is outrageous. Employ the GC and get it over with


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Collaborators are complicit in murder and treason.

Both serious offenses.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 27, 2016)

Israel would actually be within its rights to detain and execute unlawful or unprivileged combatants IE saboteurs and spies however, Israel is making every attempt to follow a higher path and take the high ground in its treatment of violent Arab Muslims.

As it sit the Arab Muslims in Gaza and in the Israeli territories are happy to execute prisoners without due process as Tinmore and others have so graciously pointed out. However I'd agree that Israel takes this higher road except for that Israel allows these unlawful combatants to remain in country. IMHO they should be summarily repatriated.

Quote

“The ICRC was uncertain which category of persons it was desired to cover. The present Conference was engaged in framing a Convention to protect members of armed forces and similar categories of persons, such as members of organized resistance movements, and another convention to protect civil- ians. Although the two Conventions might appear to cover all the categories concerned, irregular belligerents were not actually protected. It was an open question whether it was desirable to give protection to persons who did not conform to the laws and customs of war; but in view of the fact that isolated cases might arise which deserved to be taken into account, it would appear necessary to provide for a general clause of protection, similar to the one con- tained in the Hague Convention of 1907, to which the Soviet Delegate had referred. It did not however seem expedient to introduce this conception into an Article, the main object of which was to define clearly all the categories of persons who should be protected by the present Convention [III].” 20

From this statement, three essential points can be singled out:

First, Mr Wilhelm interpreted the Stockholm drafts of GC III and IV as not protecting irregular belligerents or “persons who did not conform to the laws and customs of war”. This is rather surprising, given that the per- sonal scope of application of GC IV was very broadly defined,21 unless he meant that such persons might be covered by the personal field of applica- tion but that the substantive provisions did not really accord protection (if he limited his statement to unlawful combatants on the battlefield as defended nowadays in the legal literature by, for example, Baxter, Draper and Kalshoven).

Second, he recognized the need for minimum protection of such per- sons, which can be derived from the Martens Clause.

Third, this protection should not be spelled out in a convention deal- ing with POWs.

The Danish delegate responded by saying that “it was not a question of granting the persons referred to in the paragraph the same rights and privi- leges as those of prisoners of war, but simply of affording “a minimum of pro- tection”, “of preventing such persons from being subjected to inhuman treat- ment or summarily shot”.22

Other delegates were not opposed to providing a minimum of protec- tion, but could not agree that such a protection clause be introduced in GC III. Thus the proposed paragraph 3 of draft Article 3 [GC III, Art. 4] was not retained.23 Instead the Conference essentially agreed upon what became the substance of Article 5 of GC III (i.e. protection as POWs for “persons resisting the enemy” until a competent tribunal determines their status). The second part of the latter proposal, which read: “Even in cases where the decision of the above-mentioned authorities would not allow these persons to benefit under the present Convention, they shall nevertheless remain under the safeguard and rule of the principles of International Law as derived

from the usages prevailing among civilized nations, of human rights and the demands of the public conscience”, was likewise not retained.24 In the end, the Danish delegate only asked as cited in the quotation below, for the Summary Record to mention that his view regarding interpretation of Article 3 had met with no objections.25 The Committee’s discussions were summarized as follows in the Report to the Plenary Assembly:

“Certain Delegations wished to extend the application of the Convention to cover still other categories of persons. They had particularly in mind civil- ians who had taken up arms to defend their life, their health, their near ones, their livelihood, under an attack which violated the laws and conditions of war and desired to ensure that such civilians falling into enemy hands should not be shot after summary judgment but should be treated according to the provisions or at least the humanitarian principles of the Convention. Numerous possible solutions of this problem were carefully considered but in the end a majority of the Committee came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to take the course proposed without the risk of indirectly weak- ening the protection afforded to persons coming under the various cate- gories of Article 3 [GC III, Art. 4]. One Delegation pointed out, in particu- lar, that the acceptance of the proposed extension would be tantamount to rejecting the principles generally accepted at The Hague, and recognized in the Prisoner of War Convention. It was, according to the views of this Delegation, essential that war, even illegal war, should be governed by those principles. Nevertheless, another Delegation asked that the Summary Record should mention that no objections had been raised, during the dis- cussion in the Special Committee, against his view that Article 3 should not be interpreted in such a way as to deprive persons, not covered by the provi- sions of Article 3, of their human rights or of their right of self-defence against illegal acts.” 26

In the plenary debates on Article 5 of GC III (decision by a competent tribunal in case of doubt) the issue of persons not fulfilling the conditions to qualify as POWs, but participating nevertheless in hostilities (i.e. unlawful combatants), arose again. Captain Mouton (Netherlands), arguing in favour of
a court decision instead of a decision by a “competent authority”, claimed that the latter approach would mean “in practice that (...) the military commander on the spot ... decides whether a person who has fallen into his hands comes under Article 3 [GC III] or does not belong to Article 3. (...) It means that if he decides that he does not belong to Article 3 he will be considered to be a franc tireur and be put against the wall and shot on the spot.” 

End Quote

From the previous link provided ;--)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 27, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Israel would actually be within its rights to detain and execute unlawful or unprivileged combatants IE saboteurs and spies however, Israel is making every attempt to follow a higher path and take the high ground in its treatment of violent Arab Muslims.
> 
> As it sit the Arab Muslims in Gaza and in the Israeli territories are happy to execute prisoners without due process as Tinmore and others have so graciously pointed out. However I'd agree that Israel takes this higher road except for that Israel allows these unlawful combatants to remain in country. IMHO they should be summarily repatriated.
> 
> ...


They had particularly in mind *civil- ians who had taken up arms to defend their life, their health, their near ones, their livelihood, under an attack which violated the laws and conditions of war* and desired to ensure that such civilians falling into enemy hands should not be shot after summary judgment but should be treated according to the provisions or at least the humanitarian principles of the Convention.

Nevertheless, another Delegation asked that the Summary Record should mention that no objections had been raised, during the dis- cussion in the Special Committee, against his view that *Article 3 should not be interpreted in such a way as to deprive persons, not covered by the provi- sions of Article 3, of their human rights or of their right of self-defence against illegal acts.”* 26​
All people have the right to defend themselves, their family, their property, and their country. Period.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​


----------



## anotherlife (Mar 27, 2016)

I wonder why they haven't imported the Israel war into Europe yet, even after its 50 years runtime now.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


EYUP. Of course, under the auspices of islamo-barbarism, there's no reason to believe that Islamo-justice is served by a trial, with you know, a period of discovery, or with witnesses present. Islamo-barbarian justice of the Arab-Moslem kind is served by Islamic terrorists who mow down people in their barbarian version of street justice. 

Criminal gangs of Islamic terrorists meting out islamo-justice to their fellow Islamic terrorists.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 27, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Collaboration is a big problem in Gaza. Killing people at random, as you imply, does not address that problem.

IOW, you are full of crap.


----------



## anotherlife (Mar 27, 2016)

Do you know what the problem is with the Geneva convention?  That it stops the Jews from doing what they like the most, that is tormenting their neighbors.  So they will never accept it, they didn't in the Soviet Union, and they don't in Israel either.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


So, tell us about the trial proceedings. 

Otherwise, define what constitutes "collaboration" with reference to Joooooos obviously. 

I just think it's so cute that the Islamic terrorists in Gaza are nothing more than ISIS _lite_.


----------



## anotherlife (Mar 27, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


This is easy to answer.  Political science documents, that the more isolation and segmentation a military imposes on a neighboring population, the more collaboration stories are invented, which then starts the induced self destruction of that neighbor.  So far, this technique has been used in Europe too, but only by Jewish power brokers.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









Normal war of course, and the Palestinians should refrain from doing it if they don't want to end up charged with war crimes and genocide

They have under the terms of the Geneva conventions and IHL, it is called a militia or irregulars


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 27, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Erdogan would probably give Boston a job.  Under Boston's crazy interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, Erdogan would have the right to expel most of the Kurds from Turkey.
> 
> *"Suruc massacre: 'Turkish student' was suicide bomber*
> 
> ...







 WRONG AGAIN LOSER     Just the suicide bomber if he had lived.

 Please learn English


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The concept of "legal" and "illegal" are simply wrong in the evaluation of the Jordanian action to annex.  The action was, by no means an acute decision or a spontaneous action.  It was the consequence of the behind the seen action by the _(largely invisible)_ Allied Hand that collaboratively worked with the King Abdullah’s Arab Legion _(Jordanian Army) _.  The Arab Legion, trained and led by serving British Officers, captured the Jewish Quarter of  Jerusalem and seized control of the territory we call today as the West Bank.

While most people understood that HM's Government, as the Mandatory, was opposed to the Partition Plan adopted by the General Assembly, what most people were unaware of was the Invisible Hand involvement in the 1948 War of Independence against the Jewish Forces allowed the Arab Legion to expand Jordanian control.  Jordan's objective, all along, was to enhance Jordan's economic, agricultural, and commercial capacity.  By seizing the West Bank, doubled Jordan’s population was doubled.

While the Arab League generally opposed Jordanian Annexation, the greatest objection came from the embryonic Arab Militants that would eventually evolve into the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) whose Fedayeen would later ignite a Civil War in Jordan and show the true colors of the Arab Palestinian.  The leadership of the Arab Militants (pre-PLO) refused to accept accept the sovereign leadership from Amman.

This is why the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank was never recognised by the UN or any country other than the UK and Pakistan.  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There are very few actions taken that the entire world agrees upon, let alone the political implications of adopting the UN Special Commission Recommendation.  


*EXCERPT:  General Information about the National Assembly*
"Following Palestine Partition Resolution and the ensuing 1948 war, the Jordanian State directed its efforts towards uniting the East and West Banks, thus, holding parliamentary elections covering both Banks on April 11th 1950. The first Senate Council was dissolved to appoint new members including members from the West Bank.  The Jordanian political system is based on the separation of the three powers (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary).  Subsequently, the newly elected Council officially endorsed the unity of East Jordan and the West Bank on the 24th of April 1950."
*SOURCE:* Jordanian Parliament Website​The membership to the Parliament was through an electoral process.  I've said this many times.  The Annexation was a consequence of the Arab-Palestinian exercising the right to self-determination.

It should also be pointed out that Jordan was not a full member of the United Nations until 14 December 1955.   It was only then that Jordan came under the Charter.  However, this is the paradox:  The UN General Assembly and Security Council were well aware in December of 1955 that Jordan had annexed the West Bank in 1950.

•  If the interpretation in the 1950' was that Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank, then why was it admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council?​Time changes all things.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 27, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The concept of "legal" and "illegal" are simply wrong in the evaluation of the Jordanian action to annex.  The action was, by no means an acute decision or a spontaneous action.  It was the consequence of the behind the seen action by the _(largely invisible)_ Allied Hand that collaboratively worked with the King Abdullah’s Arab Legion _(Jordanian Army) _.  The Arab Legion, trained and led by serving British Officers, captured the Jewish Quarter of  Jerusalem and seized control of the territory we call today as the West Bank.
> 
> ...


None of this refutes my post.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. You should know that.

Membership in the UN is purely political. It has nothing to do with legalities.


----------



## anotherlife (Mar 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Very interesting.  It may be illegal to annex occupied territories, but only temporarily.  International law also says, that annexation is legal, if it reduces the loss of life there. So, the occupying force needs to do only a fast killing field until the day of annexation, after which point it reduces its kill rate, and then the annexation is legal.  This principle has been widely used in Europe, ever since the end of ww1, and is now extended to the Middle East.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore,, et al,

OK, so you don't see or recognize the UN Charter as an International Treaty.  I don't really care.



P F Tinmore said:


> None of this refutes my post.
> 
> It is illegal to annex occupied territory. You should know that.
> 
> Membership in the UN is purely political. It has nothing to do with legalities.


*(COMMENT)*

If you completely discount the UN Charter as a source of international law, THEN, what law (pre-1950) are you claiming has been violated?

Which entity broke the law?

•  The Arab-Palestinians that voted to accept annexation and citizenship?

•  The Parliament that extended the offer of annexation and citizenship?​If an international law was violated, what country petitioned the International Court of Justice to settle the claim in accordance with international law --- the legal disputes submitted to it by States claiming the violation.

Like so many people, you don't see the greater picture.


Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory. Occasionally, as in the Allied military occupation of Germany after the cessation of hostilities in World War II was not followed by annexation. When military occupation results in annexation, an official announcement is normal, to the effect that the sovereign authority of the annexing state has been established and will be maintained in the future. Israel made such a declaration when it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. The subsequent recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied. Annexation based on the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations.
*SOURCE #1: * Encyclopedia Britannica​
•∆•  Remembering of course that you said:  "Membership in the UN is purely political. It has nothing to do with legalities."  Most discussion center on the UN Charter and Security Council Resolution 242, 22 November 1967.

So I would be appreciative if you would point-out the law for which Jordan (UN Membership 1955) was in violation in 1950; that will help me with my understanding and discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 27, 2016)

Interesting, so Israel would be within its legal rights to simply annex the disputed territories once it employs the GC to clear out hostiles.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 Again you make a far reaching statement without clarifying the laws you are trying to use. When did it become law to stop the annexation of occupied territory, and what law was enacted.
 The reason I ask is because muslims are annexing occupied territory all the time and nothing is said or done about it.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 27, 2016)

Arab Muslims in Israel are right now trying to annex land intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland. Yet I don't hear a lot of complaining as long as it takes land from Israel and gives it to the racists and bigots. 

I have to wonder if those same people would equally support Israel's effort to finally incorporate this last of the land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland given that Israel has the significantly stronger claim and that the Arab Muslims have virtually no claim other than the "want it" for a future state. 

But before Israel annexes the remainder of the area west of the Jordan, it first needs to clear out the hostiles and send them packing. Employing the GC to their full advantage.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure this is true _(but it could be)_.

And I'm not sure it is to Israel's advantage to do such a thing _(legal or illegal ---- right or wrong ---- ethical or unethical ---- practical or impractical)_.  



Boston1 said:


> Interesting, so Israel would be within its legal rights to simply annex the disputed territories once it employs the GC to clear out hostiles.


*(REFERENCE)
*




 ​*Criteria:*

•  Placed under the authority.
•  The Authority is a Hostile Army.
•  The "occupation" only extends  to where such authority can be exercised.​*(COMMENT)*

The question of whether or not the Jordanian Annexation of 1950 was exercised under an "occupation" depends on if the Jordanian action meets the criteria of being a "occupation of the territory known as the West Bank.

•  Was the Jordanian military entry into the West Bank a Hostile Army.
•  The PCIJ ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements:

(i) Was there an intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent?
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous?​•  Did Jordan have the ability _(manpower and resources in place)_ to enforce the occupation?
•  What the presents of the Arab League considered hostile?​
The only reason that the Geneva Convention is being applied, is because there is no other standard to use under belligerent conditions versus friendly conditions.  Clearly the Arab Palestinians embraced the Arab Legion under friendly condition, rather than the belligerence under the IDF presence. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 27, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, I'm not sure this is true _(but it could be)_.
> 
> ...



Yes, but the Arab Muslims of the disputed territories weren't the only people involved and it could be easily said the Jordanian invasion of land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland was a hostile invasion and many Judaic people living there were forced to flee what to them was a hostile invation. One must also remember that the Arabs also confiscated much Israeli land in the war of 48 in Israel proper, which was subsequently won back in the war of 67. In which case again the term "friendly" is highly subjective. Looks like the PCIJ criteria could be easily applied to both parties.

Which is why I suggested Israel first vet every Arab Muslim individually regarding their status as combatants ( legal or not ) or non combatants ( refugees or civilians ) And upon determining eligibility for repatriation remove all hostiles from the territory. Exactly as specified within the GCs. At which point the remaining people would be considered "friendlies" ?  ;--)

The PCIJ is obsolete and dissolved with the collapse of the LoN or shortly thereafter and before the advent of the last iteration of the GC. Its subsequent embodiment is the ICJ which has limited authority over international treaties like the GCs. Ergo I doubt the PCIJ legitimacy of friendly intentions, regarding occupation. Also this whole requirement for friendly occupation is only a stipulation within the PCIJ literature and not found in the GC. So which takes precedence ? Does the PCIJ supersede the GC and does it have authority to add special clauses and articles to that original document? If so why would the signatories be bound by the amended articles if they didn't specifically sign and formally agree to them in the first place ? Is this a judgement or an advisory opinion ? Does the court have authority to dictate treaty changes without consulting each treaty member ? Does a court which no longer exists have any authority today ?

Another angle would be that Israel was never divided. Legally it always encompassed everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area. The green line was never a legally recognized boundary according to the Arabs at least. Ergo the majority of Israelis would see the rout of Jordanian forces and the reintegration of this last territory back to its intended purpose as a friendly gesture ;--)

Friendly being an extremely ambiguous term.

In the end IMHO Israel's only real requirement here is that she employ the GC to the letter. Which means determining how to treat unlawful combatants, segregating male and female POWs from non combatants. Determining who is eligible for repatriation and addressing the issues of refoulment and forced repatriation.

Again IMHO none of which are insurmountable issues. Israel could simple force the undesirables into Gaza and let them have their precious state there where there's inevitably going to be one anyway.

The peaceful ones are welcome of course to stay. And then once the area is peacefully so called occupied Israel is within its rights to annex it, even meeting the criteria of the defunct PCIJ.

IE prior to annexation Israel only needs to create the circumstance for a legal annexation, which IMHO is the strict application of the GCs


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 28, 2016)

Didn't mean to throw a wrench into the works there Rocco. I actually enjoy your posts tremendously. I was just noticing that an advisory opinion from a defunct court likely has no effect on the world politic today.

The tenants that we must adhere to in war are those laid out by the Geneva Convention and only the GC as by including any number of other opinions would so muddy the waters that nothing of a definitive nature be possible.

And of course I suggest that Israel adhere to the GC tenants diligently and immediately in order to end the violence sooner than later.


----------



## montelatici (Mar 28, 2016)

Who are these GC tenants that you say we must adhere to. What are we renting to these GCs?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 29, 2016)

montelatici,

 OH --- for heaven's sake.



montelatici said:


> Who are these GC tenants that you say we must adhere to. What are we renting to these GCs?


*(COMMENT)*

It is not like we did not know what he meant to spell. 


•  A *tenet* is a principle held as being true, especially by an organization or a group of people.​
There are many homophones, that I have typed in error.   But it is not like we are writing our dissertation here (hear).

v/r
R


----------



## montelatici (Mar 29, 2016)

Yes, there are too many homophobes.  I agree.


----------



## Challenger (Mar 29, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> it could be easily said the Jordanian invasion of land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland was a hostile invasion and many Judaic people living there were forced to flee what to them was a hostile invation.



Only if you were making things up again. In 1948 the Jordanian Arab Legion entered the core of the U.N. allocated "Arab Palestine" what became known as the West Bank. There were no Zionist settlers there at the time to "flee" from this "hostile" advance (invasion is spelled with an "s" not a "t" by the way; probably too much peyote addling your brain again.) There were only two kibbutzim anywhere along the Jordanian axis of advance and their populations had been evacuated long before as the Zionist high command considered them undefendable if any hostilities should ever break out. The kibbutzniks were living a comfortable and peaceful life in Sodom (of all places ). Jordan never invaded any territory allocated to the "Jewish State".


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 29, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > it could be easily said the Jordanian invasion of land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland was a hostile invasion and many Judaic people living there were forced to flee what to them was a hostile invation.
> ...



Looks like you are making things up again ;--)

The fact is that no area west of the Jordan within the mandated area was ever designated as Arab Muslim or Judaic. The entirety of the area was however left open for the Creation of a national Jewish homeland in both the Mandate and the Jordan memorandum.

In the end the Judaic people won their homeland the old fashioned way, through armed conflict. Including the disputed territories. It was only AFTER the Israeli victory that left the entirety of the mandated area west of the Jordan under Israeli control that the Arab led UN retroactively made acquisition of land through war illegal.

You might try actually reading them from time to time.

The FACT that the Arab League stated in its declaration of war against the fledgling state of Israel that it intended to "invade" is admission enough it knew the area was NOT intended as part of the Jordanian state, or any other Arab state.

The FACT that they ( the Jordanians ) attempted to annex the area, goes to show their indifference to any nonsense about the Arab Muslims on one side of the Jordan river 100' or so away from the Arab Muslims on the other, wanting their own state.

The simple reality that you are unable to face is that the area was only sparsely populated up until the second Arab colonial period in the early to mid 20th century when Judaic investment capitol led to an influx of Arab laborers in the area.

The Arab League invasion and subsequent occupation of 1948 left countless Arab colonists and combatants on land intended for a national Jewish homeland.

IMHO these colonists/combatants need to be vetted individually exactly as specified in the GC, and all who qualify for repatriation should be returned to their country of origin. Since all were Jordanian dating back to 1928 and then illegally stripped of their citizenship, its not real difficult to suggest who should take them. Although where they go is not Israel's problem.

The peaceful among them of course are welcome to stay.

A simple and judicious application of the GC would be 100% legal and affords the actions necessary to put an end to this nonsense once and for all.

Oh and Daffy, no homophobia at all, just pointing out that homosexual behavior is rampant throughout the Muslim world. As is racism, bigotry and prejudice of all types.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 29, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Yes, there are too many homophobes.  I agree.








 You being one of them


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 29, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > it could be easily said the Jordanian invasion of land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland was a hostile invasion and many Judaic people living there were forced to flee what to them was a hostile invation.
> ...







 So why did we see 1 million displaced Jews evicted from their homes in the arab lands including the west bank. And then Jordan enacting a property law stealing the Jews land from them and not having to pay compensation.


 Tell you what rat boy why don't you draw these borders on a map and see what you come up with



Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:11


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.




 This by the way is the legal borders of Israel as declared by the LoN in 1922


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 29, 2016)

He won't lay it out on a map, I don't think he reads maps. He certainly doesn't read links ;--)


----------



## montelatici (Mar 29, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...




_"The fact is that no area west of the Jordan within the mandated area was ever designated as Arab Muslim or Judaic." 
_
*United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181*
*November 29, 1947*

*"Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village. There it follows the western boundary line of the villages of 'Alma, Rihaniya and Teitaba, thence following the northern boundary line of Meirun village to join the Acre-Safad Sub-District boundary line. It follows this line to a point west of Es Sammu'i village and joins it again at the northernmost point of Farradiya. Thence it follows the sub-district boundary line to the Acre-Safad main road. From here it follows the western boundary of Kafr-I'nan village until it reaches the Tiberias-Acre Sub-District boundary line, passing to the west of the junction of the Acre-Safad and Lubiya-Kafr-I'nan roads. From the south-west corner of Kafr-I'nan village the boundary line follows the western boundary of the Tiberias Sub-District to a point close to the boundary line between the villages of Maghar and 'Eilabun, thence bulging out to the west to include as much of the eastern part of the plain of Battuf as is necessary for the reservoir proposed by the Jewish Agency for the irrigation of lands to the south and east.

The boundary rejoins the Tiberias Sub-District boundary at a point on the Nazareth-Tiberias road south-east of the built-up area of Tur'an; thence it runs southwards, at first following the sub-district boundary and then passing between the Kadoorie Agricultural School and Mount Tabor, to a point due south at the base of Mount Tabor. From here it runs due west, parallel to the horizontal grid line 230, to the north-east corner of the village lands of Tel Adashim. It then runs to the northwest corner of these lands, whence it turns south and west so as to include in the Arab State the sources of the Nazareth water supply in Yafa village. On reaching Ginneiger it follows the eastern, northern and western boundaries of the lands of this village to their south-west comer, whence it proceeds in a straight line to a point on the Haifa-Afula railway on the boundary between the villages of Sarid and El-Mujeidil. This is the point of intersection. The south-western boundary of the area of the Arab State in Galilee takes a line from this point, passing northwards along the eastern boundaries of Sarid and Gevat to the north-eastern corner of Nahalal, proceeding thence across the land of Kefar ha Horesh to a central point on the southern boundary of the village of 'Ilut, thence westwards along that village boundary to the eastern boundary of Beit Lahm, thence northwards and north-eastwards along its western boundary to the north-eastern corner of Waldheim and thence north-westwards across the village lands of Shafa 'Amr to the southeastern corner of Ramat Yohanan. From here it runs due north-north-east to a point on the Shafa 'Amr-Haifa road, west of its junction with the road of I'billin. From there it proceeds north-east to a point on the southern boundary of I'billin situated to the west of the I'billin-Birwa road. Thence along that boundary to its westernmost point, whence it turns to the north, follows across the village land of Tamra to the north-westernmost corner and along the western boundary of Julis until it reaches the Acre-Safad road. It then runs westwards along the southern side of the Safad-Acre road to the Galilee-Haifa District boundary, from which point it follows that boundary to the sea.

*The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west *to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the Sub-Districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin. From that point it follows the Nablus-Jenin sub-District boundary westwards for a distance of about three kilometres and then turns north-westwards, passing to the east of the built-up areas of the villages of Jalbun and Faqqu'a, to the boundary of the Sub-Districts of Jenin and Beisan at a point northeast of Nuris. Thence it proceeds first northwestwards to a point due north of the built-up area of Zie'in and then westwards to the Afula-Jenin railway, thence north-westwards along the District boundary line to the point of intersection on the Hejaz railway. From here the boundary runs southwestwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh. Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El- Mansi. It follows this boundary to the southernmost point of the village of El-Buteimat. From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi 'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village. From here it runs along the railway line some distance to the east of it to a point just east of the Tulkarm railway station. Thence the boundary follows a line half-way between the railway and the Tulkarm-Qalqiliya-Jaljuliya and Ras El-Ein road to a point just east of Ras El-Ein station, whence it proceeds along the railway some distance to the east of it to the point on the railway line south of the junction of the Haifa-Lydda and Beit Nabala lines, whence it proceeds along the southern border of Lydda airport to its south-west corner, thence in a south-westerly direction to a point just west of the built-up area of Sarafand El 'Amar, whence it turns south, passing just to the west of the built-up area of Abu El-Fadil to the north-east corner of the lands of Beer Ya'aqov. (The boundary line should be so demarcated as to allow direct access from the Arab State to the airport.) Thence the boundary line follows the western and southern boundaries of Ramle village, to the north-east corner of El Na'ana village, thence in a straight line to the southernmost point of El Barriya, along the eastern boundary of that village and the southern boundary of 'Innaba village. Thence it turns north to follow the southern side of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road until El-Qubab, whence it follows the road to the boundary of Abu-Shusha. It runs along the eastern boundaries of Abu Shusha, Seidun, Hulda to the southernmost point of Hulda, thence westwards in a straight line to the north-eastern corner of Umm Kalkha, thence following the northern boundaries of Umm Kalkha, Qazaza and the northern and western boundaries of Mukhezin to the Gaza District boundary and thence runs across the village lands of El-Mismiya El-Kabira, and Yasur to the southern point of intersection, which is midway between the built-up areas of Yasur and Batani Sharqi.

From the southern point of intersection the boundary lines run north-westwards between the villages of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the sea at a point half way between Nabi Yunis and Minat El-Qila, and south-eastwards to a point west of Qastina, whence it turns in a south-westerly direction, passing to the east of the built-up areas of Es Sawafir Esh Sharqiya and 'Ibdis. From the south-east corner of 'Ibdis village it runs to a point southwest of the built-up area of Beit 'Affa, crossing the Hebron-El-Majdal road just to the west of the built-up area of 'Iraq Suweidan. Thence it proceeds southward along the western village boundary of El-Faluja to the Beersheba Sub-District boundary. It then runs across the tribal lands of 'Arab El-Jubarat to a point on the boundary between the Sub-Districts of Beersheba and Hebron north of Kh. Khuweilifa, whence it proceeds in a south-westerly direction to a point on the Beersheba-Gaza main road two kilometres to the north-west of the town. It then turns south-eastwards to reach Wadi Sab' at a point situated one kilometer to the west of it. From here it turns north-eastwards and proceeds along Wadi Sab' and along the Beersheba-Hebron road for a distance of one kilometer, whence it turns eastwards and runs in a straight line to Kh. Kuseifa to join the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary. It then follows the Beersheba-Hebron boundary eastwards to a point north of Ras Ez-Zuweira, only departing from it so as to cut across the base of the indentation between vertical grid lines 150 and 160.

About five kilometres north-east of Ras Ez-Zuweira it turns north, excluding from the Arab State a strip along the coast of the Dead Sea not more than seven kilometres in depth, as far as 'Ein Geddi, whence it turns due east to join *the Transjordan frontier *in the Dead Sea.

The northern boundary of the Arab section of the coastal plain runs from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis, passing between the built-up areas of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the point of intersection. From here it turns south-westwards, running across the lands of Batani Sharqi, along the eastern boundary of the lands of Beit Daras and across the lands of Julis, leaving the built-up areas of Batani Sharqi and Julis to the westwards, as far as the north-west corner of the lands of Beit-Tima. Thence it runs east of El-Jiya across the village lands of El-Barbara along the eastern boundaries of the villages of Beit Jirja, Deir Suneid and Dimra. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Beit Hanun the line runs south-west to a point south of the parallel grid line 100, then turns north-west for two kilometres, turning again in a southwesterly direction and continuing in an almost straight line to the north-west corner of the village lands of Kirbet Ikhza'a. From there it follows the boundary line of this village to its southernmost point. It then runs in a southerly direction along the vertical grid line 90 to its junction with the horizontal grid line 70. It then turns south-eastwards to Kh. El-Ruheiba and then proceeds in a southerly direction to a point known as El-Baha, beyond which it crosses the Beersheba-EI 'Auja main road to the west of Kh. El-Mushrifa. From there it joins Wadi El-Zaiyatin just to the west of El-Subeita. From there it turns to the north-east and then to the south-east following this Wadi and passes to the east of 'Abda to join Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh, Wadi 'Ajrim and Wadi Lassan to the point where Wadi Lassan crosses the Egyptian frontier.

The area of the Arab enclave of Jaffa consists of that part of the town-planning area of Jaffa which lies to the west of the Jewish quarters lying south of Tel-Aviv, to the west of the continuation of Herzl street up to its junction with the Jaffa-Jerusalem road, to the south-west of the section of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road lying south-east of that junction, to the west of Miqve Yisrael lands, to the northwest of Holon local council area, to the north of the line linking up the north-west corner of Holon with the northeast corner of Bat Yam local council area and to the north of Bat Yam local council area. The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State."

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan. It includes the whole of the Huleh Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan Sub-District, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State. The Jewish section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza Sub-District and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba Sub-District, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza Sub-District, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State."

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 29, 2016)

All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty. 

UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act. 

The fact that Arab League declared war on March 15 and attacked the fledgling Israeli state put the entire issue into a whole new light. 

A nations right to defend itself. 

Israel won, several times and today. THERE IS NO PALESTINE.


----------



## Challenger (Mar 30, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...









Proof, if any were needed, Bison1 is a master at producing an unbelievable mass of bovine excrement. Thanks to Monty for saving me the effort.


----------



## Challenger (Mar 30, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.
> 
> UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act.
> 
> ...



Someone needs to read the Proclamation of independance....


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 30, 2016)

Not real bright are you Spiffy

From the UN itself

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwiDvJmLr-jLAhXlsYMKHRXpDl4QFgg4MAQ&url=http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/united-nations/the-general-assembly.html&usg=AFQjCNHlJ8LeO-QsMAZYe0Z72T82NFpW5A&sig2=B6JKBaqeXK4ojvwA3NEioA&bvm=bv.118353311,d.amc

Quote

All 192 member states of the United Nations have a vote in the General Assembly. Additionally, several entities, like the Vatican, have non-voting observer status that allows them to participate in debate but not vote on resolutions or declarations. *Recommendations* on peace and security, the election of members to organs, the admission, suspension, and expulsion of members, and budgetary matters require a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to pass. Resolutions on other matters only require a simple majority. *Aside from budgetary matters, resolutions are non-binding on member states*.

End Quote

In the end 181 just like all the other UN resolutions not ratified under tittle 7 are nothing more than recommendations and have exactly no authority as international law.

And

Quote

Someone needs to read the Proclamation of independance....

End Quote

Yikes, and I'm the one who should be reading eh. Try the *Declaration* of Independence Spiffy and get back to us on that one ;--)

So just out of curiosity can you show us where the continental congress ever declared itself an advisory committee ? Instead of the authoritative body of the fledgling US nation ? Once again you ignorance of history is glaringly apparent.

But getting back to that international law thing. The Geneva Conventions NOT the UN is the definitive work on the rules of war. All Israel need do is employ the GC to the letter and this conflict would be over in less than a year. Halt all international aid to the terrorists and see how long they last. ;--)


----------



## Challenger (Mar 30, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Yikes, and I'm the one who should be reading eh. Try the *Declaration* of Independence Spiffy and get back to us on that one ;--)



American colonists "declared" independence. Zionists "proclaimed" it, at least they did according to official Knesset records: Proclamation of Independence


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 30, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.
> 
> UNR 181 is a general assembly resolution rejected by all Arab states able to vote at the time. As such is was a suggestion, not even remotely a legally binding act.
> 
> ...


It is true that resolution 181 was stillborn.

However,

The Arab League did not declare war on Israel and there is no evidence that any Arab armies entered Israeli territory.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Mar 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.
> ...



Perhaps the Arab League didn't declare war.  However, Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948. After that date, any Arab army coming into the newly-declared state would be entering Israeli territory.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Mar 30, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yikes, and I'm the one who should be reading eh. Try the *Declaration* of Independence Spiffy and get back to us on that one ;--)
> ...



Thanks for posting Israel's Proclamation of Independence.  It was very inspiring to read it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 30, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


That is just say so. I have seen no evidence that anyone entered Israel.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 30, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yikes, and I'm the one who should be reading eh. Try the *Declaration* of Independence Spiffy and get back to us on that one ;--)
> ...



LOL you are pathetic

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...yZUC-_Mcv3P6cThe1lnjVg&bvm=bv.118353311,d.amc

QUote 


THE *DECLARATION* OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

May 14, 1948

_On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was __recognized that night by the United States__ and three days later by the USSR._





Text:





ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, _ma'pilim_ [(Hebrew) - immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, *HEREBY DECLARE* THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".


End QUote 

It takes a really weak psyche to try and pull that kinda switch and bait. But no worries, turns out you were wrong either way ;--) 

You seem to have trouble with basic debating skills Spiffy. Might want to read up on technique or something, your really flailing again. 

Would you like to explain how general assembly resolutions at the UN are binding ? Because I'm just dying to hear that one. 

Also who cares if another advisory committee makes another suggestion, regarding borders or anything else. How does that make it law or fact ? 

You don't seem to realize just how the UN works. Or maybe you'd like to explain that to us as well. 

The simple fact is that NO land was ever legally and lawfully granted to the Arab Muslims west of the Jordan.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 30, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Would you like to explain how general assembly resolutions at the UN are binding ? Because I'm just dying to hear that one.​
Good point. So then, why did Israel use it to pretend to have legitimacy?


----------



## montelatici (Mar 30, 2016)

From the resolution referred to by Bison, the Arab State, all west of the Jordan. LOL

*Part II. - Boundaries*
A. THE ARAB STATE
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village. There it follows the western boundary line of the villages of 'Alma, Rihaniya and Teitaba, thence following the northern boundary line of Meirun village to join the Acre-Safad Sub-District boundary line. It follows this line to a point west of Es Sammu'i village and joins it again at the northernmost point of Farradiya. Thence it follows the sub-district boundary line to the Acre-Safad main road. From here it follows the western boundary of Kafr-I'nan village until it reaches the Tiberias-Acre Sub-District boundary line, passing to the west of the junction of the Acre-Safad and Lubiya-Kafr-I'nan roads. From the south-west corner of Kafr-I'nan village the boundary line follows the western boundary of the Tiberias Sub-District to a point close to the boundary line between the villages of Maghar and 'Eilabun, thence bulging out to the west to include as much of the eastern part of the plain of Battuf as is necessary for the reservoir proposed by the Jewish Agency for the irrigation of lands to the south and east.

The boundary rejoins the Tiberias Sub-District boundary at a point on the Nazareth-Tiberias road south-east of the built-up area of Tur'an; thence it runs southwards, at first following the sub-district boundary and then passing between the Kadoorie Agricultural School and Mount Tabor, to a point due south at the base of Mount Tabor. From here it runs due west, parallel to the horizontal grid line 230, to the north-east corner of the village lands of Tel Adashim. It then runs to the northwest corner of these lands, whence it turns south and west so as to include in the Arab State the sources of the Nazareth water supply in Yafa village. On reaching Ginneiger it follows the eastern, northern and western boundaries of the lands of this village to their south-west comer, whence it proceeds in a straight line to a point on the Haifa-Afula railway on the boundary between the villages of Sarid and El-Mujeidil. This is the point of intersection. The south-western boundary of the area of the Arab State in Galilee takes a line from this point, passing northwards along the eastern boundaries of Sarid and Gevat to the north-eastern corner of Nahalal, proceeding thence across the land of Kefar ha Horesh to a central point on the southern boundary of the village of 'Ilut, thence westwards along that village boundary to the eastern boundary of Beit Lahm, thence northwards and north-eastwards along its western boundary to the north-eastern corner of Waldheim and thence north-westwards across the village lands of Shafa 'Amr to the southeastern corner of Ramat Yohanan. From here it runs due north-north-east to a point on the Shafa 'Amr-Haifa road, west of its junction with the road of I'billin. From there it proceeds north-east to a point on the southern boundary of I'billin situated to the west of the I'billin-Birwa road. Thence along that boundary to its westernmost point, whence it turns to the north, follows across the village land of Tamra to the north-westernmost corner and along the western boundary of Julis until it reaches the Acre-Safad road. It then runs westwards along the southern side of the Safad-Acre road to the Galilee-Haifa District boundary, from which point it follows that boundary to the sea.

The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the Sub-Districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin. From that point it follows the Nablus-Jenin sub-District boundary westwards for a distance of about three kilometres and then turns north-westwards, passing to the east of the built-up areas of the villages of Jalbun and Faqqu'a, to the boundary of the Sub-Districts of Jenin and Beisan at a point northeast of Nuris. Thence it proceeds first northwestwards to a point due north of the built-up area of Zie'in and then westwards to the Afula-Jenin railway, thence north-westwards along the District boundary line to the point of intersection on the Hejaz railway. From here the boundary runs southwestwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh. Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El- Mansi. It follows this boundary to the southernmost point of the village of El-Buteimat. From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi 'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village. From here it runs along the railway line some distance to the east of it to a point just east of the Tulkarm railway station. Thence the boundary follows a line half-way between the railway and the Tulkarm-Qalqiliya-Jaljuliya and Ras El-Ein road to a point just east of Ras El-Ein station, whence it proceeds along the railway some distance to the east of it to the point on the railway line south of the junction of the Haifa-Lydda and Beit Nabala lines, whence it proceeds along the southern border of Lydda airport to its south-west corner, thence in a south-westerly direction to a point just west of the built-up area of Sarafand El 'Amar, whence it turns south, passing just to the west of the built-up area of Abu El-Fadil to the north-east corner of the lands of Beer Ya'aqov. (The boundary line should be so demarcated as to allow direct access from the Arab State to the airport.) Thence the boundary line follows the western and southern boundaries of Ramle village, to the north-east corner of El Na'ana village, thence in a straight line to the southernmost point of El Barriya, along the eastern boundary of that village and the southern boundary of 'Innaba village. Thence it turns north to follow the southern side of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road until El-Qubab, whence it follows the road to the boundary of Abu-Shusha. It runs along the eastern boundaries of Abu Shusha, Seidun, Hulda to the southernmost point of Hulda, thence westwards in a straight line to the north-eastern corner of Umm Kalkha, thence following the northern boundaries of Umm Kalkha, Qazaza and the northern and western boundaries of Mukhezin to the Gaza District boundary and thence runs across the village lands of El-Mismiya El-Kabira, and Yasur to the southern point of intersection, which is midway between the built-up areas of Yasur and Batani Sharqi.

From the southern point of intersection the boundary lines run north-westwards between the villages of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the sea at a point half way between Nabi Yunis and Minat El-Qila, and south-eastwards to a point west of Qastina, whence it turns in a south-westerly direction, passing to the east of the built-up areas of Es Sawafir Esh Sharqiya and 'Ibdis. From the south-east corner of 'Ibdis village it runs to a point southwest of the built-up area of Beit 'Affa, crossing the Hebron-El-Majdal road just to the west of the built-up area of 'Iraq Suweidan. Thence it proceeds southward along the western village boundary of El-Faluja to the Beersheba Sub-District boundary. It then runs across the tribal lands of 'Arab El-Jubarat to a point on the boundary between the Sub-Districts of Beersheba and Hebron north of Kh. Khuweilifa, whence it proceeds in a south-westerly direction to a point on the Beersheba-Gaza main road two kilometres to the north-west of the town. It then turns south-eastwards to reach Wadi Sab' at a point situated one kilometer to the west of it. From here it turns north-eastwards and proceeds along Wadi Sab' and along the Beersheba-Hebron road for a distance of one kilometer, whence it turns eastwards and runs in a straight line to Kh. Kuseifa to join the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary. It then follows the Beersheba-Hebron boundary eastwards to a point north of Ras Ez-Zuweira, only departing from it so as to cut across the base of the indentation between vertical grid lines 150 and 160.

About five kilometres north-east of Ras Ez-Zuweira it turns north, excluding from the Arab State a strip along the coast of the Dead Sea not more than seven kilometres in depth, as far as 'Ein Geddi, whence it turns due east to join the Transjordan frontier in the Dead Sea.

The northern boundary of the Arab section of the coastal plain runs from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis, passing between the built-up areas of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the point of intersection. From here it turns south-westwards, running across the lands of Batani Sharqi, along the eastern boundary of the lands of Beit Daras and across the lands of Julis, leaving the built-up areas of Batani Sharqi and Julis to the westwards, as far as the north-west corner of the lands of Beit-Tima. Thence it runs east of El-Jiya across the village lands of El-Barbara along the eastern boundaries of the villages of Beit Jirja, Deir Suneid and Dimra. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Beit Hanun the line runs south-west to a point south of the parallel grid line 100, then turns north-west for two kilometres, turning again in a southwesterly direction and continuing in an almost straight line to the north-west corner of the village lands of Kirbet Ikhza'a. From there it follows the boundary line of this village to its southernmost point. It then runs in a southerly direction along the vertical grid line 90 to its junction with the horizontal grid line 70. It then turns south-eastwards to Kh. El-Ruheiba and then proceeds in a southerly direction to a point known as El-Baha, beyond which it crosses the Beersheba-EI 'Auja main road to the west of Kh. El-Mushrifa. From there it joins Wadi El-Zaiyatin just to the west of El-Subeita. From there it turns to the north-east and then to the south-east following this Wadi and passes to the east of 'Abda to join Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh, Wadi 'Ajrim and Wadi Lassan to the point where Wadi Lassan crosses the Egyptian frontier.

The area of the Arab enclave of Jaffa consists of that part of the town-planning area of Jaffa which lies to the west of the Jewish quarters lying south of Tel-Aviv, to the west of the continuation of Herzl street up to its junction with the Jaffa-Jerusalem road, to the south-west of the section of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road lying south-east of that junction, to the west of Miqve Yisrael lands, to the northwest of Holon local council area, to the north of the line linking up the north-west corner of Holon with the northeast corner of Bat Yam local council area and to the north of Bat Yam local council area. The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State."

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 30, 2016)

montelatici said:


> From the resolution referred to by Bison, the Arab State, all west of the Jordan. LOL
> 
> *Part II. - Boundaries*
> A. THE ARAB STATE
> ...


Another point of interest:

*Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations​*​
1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem *shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.*​

Israel violated this article. Israel only recognizes the Palestinians who were physically present but not these whose residence was in that territory. Being "away from home" does not change your place of residence.

*All of the Palestinians who lived in the territory that became Israel, including the refugees, are Israeli citizens.*


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 30, 2016)

LOL 

The more accurate term for resolution would be suggestion. 

There is absolutely NO legal obligation associated with a UN suggestion/resolution.


----------



## theliq (Mar 30, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL
> 
> The more accurate term for resolution would be suggestion.
> 
> There is absolutely NO legal obligation associated with a UN suggestion/resolution.


Well not by Israel,that's for sure


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 30, 2016)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



???

Israel was created the old fashioned way. The Arabs were dumb enough to declare war and Israel won. Kept fighting and Israel won again. At which point they own everything west of the Jordan. 

So whats your point ?


----------



## theliq (Mar 30, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


What's yours....apart from Iand grabs,1,2,3......Enough SAID by you..methinks


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 30, 2016)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



My point is very clear

Quote 

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go. 

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention


Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
III Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.


Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote


Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
(a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
(b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.

End Quote 

Any questions ?


----------



## Challenger (Mar 31, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



You're welcome.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 31, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL you are pathetic
> ...



LMAO you are obviously desperate. I wonder what its like to never be able to admit when you are wrong. Sorta like whenever you discuss the middle east. For instance, the Arab League declared war in 1948 and a number of the Arabs and countries that joined in that war have yet to capitulate. 

Israel for some reason failed to continue the fight until the final victory and now hosts countless hostiles mixed in with the Arab Muslim colonists from the early to mid 20 century Arab colonial period. 

All Israel need do is employ the GC to the letter and its game over for the remnant Arab League armies that remain in Israel. That would be all of Israel by the way, everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area. ;--) 

You were saying ;--)


----------



## Challenger (Mar 31, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LMAO you are obviously desperate...



Only in your wildest dreams.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 31, 2016)

Lets review

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go. 

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention


Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
III Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.


Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote


Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
(a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
(b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 31, 2016)

Might also be entertaining to see Spiffy eating his hat over the declaration of WAR the Arab League presented to the UN in 48

Quote 

On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen invaded Israel to 'restore law and order,' the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled "Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine."

End Quote 

Quote 

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, was less diplomatic and far more candid. With no patience for polite or veiled language, on the same day Israel declared its independence on May 14 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in _The New York Times, _Pasha repeated the Arabs' "intervention to restore law and order" revealing:

"*This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre *which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." The League of Arab States continued to oppose peace after Israel's 1948 War of Independence:


In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:
"Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."[10]


In October 1949, the Arab League declared that negotiation with Israel by any Arab state would be in violation of Article 18 of the Arab League.[11]
In April 1950, it called for severance of relations with any Arab state which engaged in relations or contacts with Israel and prohibited Member states from negotiating unilateral peace with Israel.[12]
In March 1979, it suspended Egypt's membership in the League (retroactively) from the date of its signing a peace treaty with Israel.[13]
More recently, in the Beirut Declaration of March 27-28, 2002, adopted at the height of Palestinian suicide attacks in Israel, the Arab League declared:

"We, the kings, presidents, and emirs of the Arab states meeting in the Council of the Arab League Summit in Beirut, capital of Lebanon ... have conducted a thorough assessment of the developments and challenges ... relating to the Arab region and, more specifically, to the occupied Palestinian territory. With great pride, we followed the Palestinian people's intifada and valiant resistance. ... We address a greeting of pride and honour to the Palestinian people's steadfastness and valiant intifada against the Israeli occupation and its destructive war machine. We greet with honour and pride the valiant martyrs of the intifada."[14]

The Arab League, which has systematically opposed and blocked peace efforts for nearly 67 years, and *is in a declared state-of-war with Israel*, is now deemed by the U.S. States Department an organization that can contribute to peace in the Middle East.

This document uses extensive links via the Internet. If you experience a broken link, please note the 5 digit number (xxxxx) at the end of the URL and use it as a Keyword in the Search Box at www.MEfacts.com.


End Quote 

While Spiffy gets a little more mustard and mayo on that hat of his lets define war according to the GC

Art 2 1st GC 

Quote 


ARTICLE 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote 

Lets see ole snake bait worm his way out of this one ;--)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 31, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Might also be entertaining to see Spiffy eating his hat over the declaration of WAR the Arab League presented to the UN in 48
> 
> Quote
> 
> ...


On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen invaded Israel to 'restore law and order,' the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled "Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine."​
Do you have a link for that?

Your statement contradicts itself.


----------



## Challenger (Mar 31, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Your statement contradicts itself.



Most of his statements do. they tend to run into each other in order to create a fantasy world for him to inhabit. OK let's start:



Boston1 said:


> The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, was less diplomatic and far more candid. With no patience for polite or veiled language, on the same day Israel declared its independence on May 14 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in _The New York Times, _Pasha repeated the Arabs' "intervention to restore law and order" revealing:
> 
> "*This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre *which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."



Really? Care to provide a link to the May 15th 1948 New York Times  article that states this?

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 31, 2016)

No one on here more regularly makes  a fool of himself than you Spiffy.

Here's your link

David Barnett and Efraim Karsh (2011). "Azzam's genocidal threat". _Middle East Quarterly_ *18* (4): 85–88.

Quote

Yet, the original document does in fact exist. It has eluded scholars for so long because they have been looking in the wrong place.

In his account of Israel's birth, Stone alluded to the possibility that the threat was made on the eve of the U.N. vote on partition, with the aim of averting this momentous decision, rather than before the pan-Arab invasion of Israel six months later.[7] Following this lead, David Barnett found a Jewish Agency memorandum, submitted on February 2, 1948, to the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked with the implementation of the partition resolution, and yet again to the U.N. secretary-general on March 29, 1948.

Describing the panoply of Arab threats of war and actual acts of violence aimed at aborting the partition resolution, the memorandum read:

(6) … The "practical and effective means" contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco. "This war," he said, "will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."[8]

The Jewish Agency memorandum cites an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom as the quote's source. An examination of the original article readily confirms the quote's authenticity, laying to rest one of the longest running historiographical debates attending the 1948 war.

End Quote

Do you really not spend so much as one second doing your own homework before you break out in one embarrassing comment after another ?

The simple fact is that a judicious application of the GC would clear out the Arab Muslim rabble in a flash.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 31, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> No one on here more regularly makes  a fool of himself than you Spiffy.
> 
> Here's your link
> 
> ...


You missed the point, not to mention that you link to a propaganda site.

On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen* invaded Israel *to 'restore law and order,' the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled *"Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine."*​

Which is it and can you prove your point?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 31, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Generating politically acceptable cover stories ('restore law and order') are an art form; and very few are as skillful at as the Arabs.



P F Tinmore said:


> You missed the point, not to mention that you link to a propaganda site.
> 
> On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen* invaded Israel *to 'restore law and order,' the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled *"Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine."*​
> Which is it and can you prove your point?


*(COMMENT)*

Oh, this is as plain as the nose on your face.  Both the Jordanians and the Egyptians had an agenda, and it wasn't about restoring law and order.   Each country wanted to secure that targeted territory.  That was their primary mission.

Egypt (in 1948) wanted to secure a secondary seaport and breakwater.  To reduce cost and open new market routes; and the potential for opening new agricultural frontiers.

Jordan, by taking the West Bank, doubled its population and the PLO backed Annexation of the West Bank by Jordan (1950), set the stage for the a truncated Civil War in which the King was assassinated by the PLO (Black September) in 1951.

Of course, in Noam Chomsky's 2010 book (_Hopes and Prospects_), makes some suggestion that Israel was interested in the potential gas and oil finds (bleeding it off.  But the current finds were not known in 1967. 

Noam Chomsky:  It cannot be too often stressed that Israel had no credible pretext for its 2008–9 attack on Gaza, with full U.S. support and illegally using U.S. weapons. Near-universal opinion asserts the contrary, claiming that Israel was acting in self-defense. That is utterly unsustainable, in light of Israel’s flat rejection of peaceful means that were readily available, as Israel and its U.S. partner in crime knew very well. That aside, Israel’s siege of Gaza is itself an act of war, as Israel of all countries certainly recognizes, having repeatedly justified launching major wars on grounds of partial restrictions on its access to the outside world, though nothing remotely like what it has long imposed on Gaza.​*•  June 19, 2008:* Hamas agrees to a ceasefire with Israel, in a truce brokered by Egypt. However, there were renewed clashes between Hamas and Israel as the truce reaches the six-month mark, and the Israeli blockade of Gaza continues.

*•  November 4, 2008:* The Israeli army enters the Gaza Strip to destroy a tunnel under-construction at the border which Israel said was used for abducting Israeli soldiers. The incursion killed at least six Hamas gunmen and one Islamic Jihad militant. In response to this ceasefire violation, Palestinian militants in Gaza fired dozens of Qassam rockets and mortar shells in the following days. Israel subsequently imposes a total blockade on the already besieged territory and closed all entry and exit points.

*•  December 19, 2008:* Hamas’s six-month ceasefire with Israel ends. Gaza militants stepped up rocket attacks on Israel, causing few casualties but sowing fear among Israelis living in rocket range. Both sides signaled they did not want any escalation. But Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would not hesitate to use Israeli might to crush Hamas if the rockets did not stop.

*•  December 27, 2008:* The Israeli military launches massive airstrikes on dozens of targets in the Gaza Strip killing over 1,300 people and injuring over 5,300 more (with 70% estimated to be civilians), during the ensuing military phase of the 22-day siege through January 18th, 2009 — the highest death toll in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in decades.​No matter which side you are on, most will not listen to anything submitted by the other side in an objective fashion.

Most Respectively,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 31, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Generating politically acceptable cover stories ('restore law and order') are an art form; and very few are as skillful at as the Arabs.
> 
> ...


Interesting, but it sidestepped  my post.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 31, 2016)

Your post was off topic anyway and had you been reading along you'd have found it already had been addressed


----------



## Challenger (Apr 1, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL
> 
> The more accurate term for resolution would be suggestion.
> 
> There is absolutely NO legal obligation associated with a UN suggestion/resolution.



Clearly you've not read up on UN Security council resolutions.  Even UN general Assembly resolutions are binding if they encompass existing international law. Typicab Bison1 making things up again.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 1, 2016)

Challenger,  et al,

No General Assembly Resolution is binding; unless it is brought into force.  The resolution will directly stipulate the requirements.  For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) never was accepted as law; however the CCPR and CESCR were on different days:



 




Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Even when a GA Resolution encompasses an existing International Law, it is not the Resolution that is binding, but the international law itself.  The GA Resolution may not lend interpretation, alter, extend or otherwise add and change an existing law.

And, while UN Security Council resolutions have the force of law within the UN membership, it depends on the wording as to the ability to enforce compliance; and the intention of the framers.  UNSC Resolution 242 is an example where the ambiguity was intentional.


*Lord Caradon* (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, _U.N. Security Council Resolution 242_, pg. 13, qtd. in _Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977_, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if *we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend*.​• _Journal of Palestine Studies_, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. *We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line*. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.​
We must be careful of what we say is enforceable.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Apr 2, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Even when a GA Resolution encompasses an existing International Law, it is not the Resolution that is binding, but the international law itself.



Exactly my point. If a GA resolution says stop doing this because it's a breach of so and so international law, the resolution becomes binding on the infringer of that law. GA resolutions also indicate how customary internatioal law is interpreted and how it evolves amongst member states; a sort of world "public opinion".


----------



## Challenger (Apr 2, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> We must be careful of what we say is enforceable.


What's "binding" and what's "enforceable" are two differeing kettles of fish. Zionist Israel can confidently ignore international law and international condemnation due to the American veto in the U.N.

Untold damage has been done to the prestige of both the U.N. and the U.S. because of this. While most nations accept that the permanent members on the Security Council will use their vetos when their own vital national interests are involved, few accept the continual abuse of the veto in favour of the national interests of another state.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 2, 2016)

Excellent! this gives me the opportunity of demonstrating how Bison1 takes information and twists it to suit his own agenda, in other words he makes things up.

His initial statement:


Boston1 said:


> The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, was less diplomatic and far more candid. With no patience for polite or veiled language, on the same day Israel declared its independence on May 14 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in _The New York Times, _Pasha repeated the Arabs' "intervention to restore law and order" revealing:
> 
> "*This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre *which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."..



I asked for the following:



Challenger said:


> Really? Care to provide a link to the May 15th 1948 New York Times article that states this?



...but instead of providing the requested link, he comes up with:



Boston1 said:


> Here's your link
> 
> David Barnett and Efraim Karsh (2011). "Azzam's genocidal threat". _Middle East Quarterly_ *18* (4): 85–88.



This has been around since 2011 (when I first came across it, it's how I knew BS1 wouldn't be able to provide the link I requested) and it directly contradicts BiSon1's assertion that,  "...on the same day Israel declared its independence on May 14 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in _The New York Times, _Pasha repeated the Arabs' "intervention to restore law and order" revealing: 
"*This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre *which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

What Azam Pasha actually said (indebted to Professor Ephraim Karsh's translation) was:

"*I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war,* as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.

"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world …

"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle … or the final one… whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine months…While en route to sign the truce, I was approached by some of my comrades in arms who told me: 'Shame on you! You are a man of the people, so how could you wish to end the war … How can we live without war?' This is because war gives the Bedouin a sense of happiness, bliss, and security that peace does not provide! …

"*I warned the Jewish leaders I met in London to desist from their policy*, telling them that the Arab was the mightiest of soldiers and the day he draws his weapon, he will not lay it down until firing the last bullet in the battle, and we will fire the last shot …"

He [Azzam] ended his conversation with me by saying: "I foresee the consequences of this bloody war. I see before me its horrible battles. I can picture its dead, injured, and victims … But my conscience is clear … *For we are not attacking but defending ourselves, and we are not aggressors but defenders against an aggression!* …"

Far from being a "declaration of war" as BiSon1 would have us believe, this was a bombast laden warning and attempt to deter Zionist agression along with a doom laden warning to the U.N. against voting for partition.  The interview also occurred, not in May 1948 as BiSon1 would have us believe, but in October 1947, seven months earlier and a month before GA resolution 181.  

See what I mean? I won't accuse BiSon1 of being a ZIO-NAZI LIAR, as Phoney would do, that's just rude and childish, but next time anyone reads a post by Bison1, I'd recommend checking his "facts". More often than not, I suspect you'll find he just makes things up.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 2, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Generating politically acceptable cover stories ('restore law and order') are an art form; and very few are as skillful at as the Arabs.



Really? Care to provide examples of this remakable skill the arabs have over and above, say America or the west in general?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 2, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Even when a GA Resolution encompasses an existing International Law, it is not the Resolution that is binding, but the international law itself.
> ...



Yikes, OK well try reading it a few times and see if you comprehend it them. 

NO GA resolution is binding unless its concerning house policy. Things like budget and how to divvy up power internally. 

Quote 

Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly as "recommendations"; the recommendatory nature of General Assembly resolutions has repeatedly been stressed by the International Court of Justice.[2]

End Quote 

ONLY security council resolutions are binding and ONLY if passed under tittle 7 of the charter. 

Quote 

Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are bound to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". Resolutions made under Chapter VII are considered binding, but resolutions under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.

End Quote 

So I guess if the UN itself says its not binding. Its not binding ;--)


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 2, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Excellent! this gives me the opportunity of demonstrating how Bison1 takes information and twists it to suit his own agenda, in other words he makes things up.
> 
> His initial statement:
> 
> ...



What color is the sky in your little world Spiffy ?


I love it. So I prove that the scum who authored the Arab Leagues declaration of war against Israel both intended it as a declaration of war and a declaration of genocide.

And rather than concede that the quote was accurate, or that the declaration of war was also one of genocide, you argue about where the quote can be found. As its commonly reported to be from one source although its original source is the one I linked to.

And you want to think anyone is fooled by that rather pedestrian effort to obfuscate.






And just for fun lets review that quote again

Quote

Yet, the original document does in fact exist. It has eluded scholars for so long because they have been looking in the wrong place.

In his account of Israel's birth, Stone alluded to the possibility that the threat was made on the eve of the U.N. vote on partition, with the aim of averting this momentous decision, rather than before the pan-Arab invasion of Israel six months later.[7] Following this lead, David Barnett found a Jewish Agency memorandum, submitted on February 2, 1948, to the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked with the implementation of the partition resolution, and yet again to the U.N. secretary-general on March 29, 1948.

Describing the panoply of Arab threats of war and actual acts of violence aimed at aborting the partition resolution, the memorandum read:

(6) … The "practical and effective means" contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco. "This war," he said, "will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."[8]

The Jewish Agency memorandum cites an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom as the quote's source. An examination of the original article readily confirms the quote's authenticity, laying to rest one of the longest running historiographical debates attending the 1948 war.

End Quote

And since this seems to be a problem for you Spiffy lets look at a few other sources

Quote

The source of the quote was traced by the Computer Scientist Brendan McKay to an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper _Akhbar al-Yom_, titled "A War of Extermination", which included the quote, with the added words "Personally, I hope the Jews do not force us into this war, because it would be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...".[1][2] The historian Efraim Karsh considers this quote a "Genocidal threat".[1]

End Quote

So who's to say it wasn't also reported in the source originally quoted ? No one is saying it was never reported or repeated, just that the original quote was as noted above ;--)

So if the US publication isn't good enough for you, and the Israeli note at the UN isn't good enough for you, then maybe the Arab league members themselves publication of it will satisfy you. Or is this another case of cognitive dissonance ?

Cheers


----------



## Challenger (Apr 2, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:
> "Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."



Well again BiSon1 twists the facts to suit his narrative. UNSC 54 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 54; July 15, 1948 was made regarding the extension of a truce negotiated on 19th May 1948 which would come into force on 11th June and last 28 days, ending on 11th July 1948. Both sides had to be pressured into accepting the truce and both sides violated the terms of the truce. UNSC 53 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 53; July 7, 1948 was merely a request to extend the truce, which the Zionist side agreed to in princple as it was to their advantage, the Arab League prevaricated. There was no accusation or condemnation of agression by the U.N. towards the Arab league and both sides complied with UNSC 54. This is known as the second truce period of the war of 1948.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 2, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> So I prove that the scum who authored the Arab Leagues declaration of war against Israel both intended it as a declaration of war and a declaration of genocide.



Only on your planet.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 2, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:
> ...



Spiffy fits you much better as you really aren't a very challenging debater

What part of the UNs SCR directed towards the Arab League to stop the aggression eluded you ? Oh and while you got the SCR 54 correct you sorta forgot to include the actual text, replacing it with your own BS commentary ;--)

Quote


In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:
"Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."[10]

End Quote 

Quote 


In October 1949, the Arab League declared that negotiation with Israel by any Arab state would be in violation of Article 18 of the Arab League.[11]
In April 1950, it called for severance of relations with any Arab state which engaged in relations or contacts with Israel and prohibited Member states from negotiating unilateral peace with Israel.[12]
In March 1979, it suspended Egypt's membership in the League (retroactively) from the date of its signing a peace treaty with Israel.[13]

End Quote

You were saying ;--)

Oh and maybe you should read my last again because clearly you don't haven't offered a competent response yet.

Quote

What color is the sky in your little world Spiffy ?



I love it. So I prove that the scum who authored the Arab Leagues declaration of war against Israel both intended it as a declaration of war and a declaration of genocide.

And rather than concede that the quote was accurate, or that the declaration of war was also one of genocide, you argue about where the quote can be found. As its commonly reported to be from one source although its original source is the one I linked to.

And you want to think anyone is fooled by that rather pedestrian effort to obfuscate.






And just for fun lets review that quote again

Quote

Yet, the original document does in fact exist. It has eluded scholars for so long because they have been looking in the wrong place.

In his account of Israel's birth, Stone alluded to the possibility that the threat was made on the eve of the U.N. vote on partition, with the aim of averting this momentous decision, rather than before the pan-Arab invasion of Israel six months later.[7]Following this lead, David Barnett found a Jewish Agency memorandum, submitted on February 2, 1948, to the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked with the implementation of the partition resolution, and yet again to the U.N. secretary-general on March 29, 1948.

Describing the panoply of Arab threats of war and actual acts of violence aimed at aborting the partition resolution, the memorandum read:

(6) … The "practical and effective means" contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco."This war," he said, "will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."[8]

The Jewish Agency memorandum cites an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom as the quote's source. An examination of the original article readily confirms the quote's authenticity, laying to rest one of the longest running historiographical debates attending the 1948 war.

End Quote

And since this seems to be a problem for you Spiffy lets look at a few other sources

Quote

The source of the quote was traced by the Computer Scientist Brendan McKay to an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper _Akhbar al-Yom_, titled "A War of Extermination", which included the quote, with the added words "Personally, I hope the Jews do not force us into this war, because it would be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...".[1][2] The historian Efraim Karsh considers this quote a "Genocidal threat".[1]

End Quote

So who's to say it wasn't also reported in the source originally quoted ? No one is saying it was never reported or repeated, just that the original quote was as noted above ;--)

So if the US publication isn't good enough for you, and the Israeli note at the UN isn't good enough for you, then maybe the Arab league members themselves publication of it will satisfy you. Or is this another case of cognitive dissonance ?

Cheers
End Quote


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 2, 2016)

So having established that under the GC definition the Arab league declared war and committed acts of war against the fledgling Israeli state

And having established that as a war the GC apply.

Then it only remains to be enforced.

Israel need only apply the GC to the letter and repatriate any hostile Arab Muslims and their descendants who never qualified for refugee status in the first place.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 2, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...










 And when did this become law, as the last I heard it was just a recommendation for the starting point of the proposed carve up of Jewish Palestine. As soon as the arab muslims turned it down it became null and void, and so it reverted to the LoN treaties that entered into International law and gave the whole of Jewish Palestine to the Jews. The UN placed this in their charter as well hence giving the Jews twice the power to claim the land.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 2, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...









 In other words you don't have an adult intelligent reply that wont show you up to be a rabid brain washed islamomarxist propaganda shill


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 2, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.
> ...








 And you need to read the LoN treaties that gave the lands to the Jews, not the arab muslims


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 2, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yikes, and I'm the one who should be reading eh. Try the *Declaration* of Independence Spiffy and get back to us on that one ;--)
> ...








 And it was accepted by the UN with the required number of votes. So what is your point ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > All this discussion and you simply don't get it do you Monty.
> ...








 WRONG AGAIN as 181 was an either or resolution. it did not need two parties to agree on the outcome

 If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory. This included gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem.    So who entered gaza, west bank, Golan heights and Jerusalem in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 2, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


If they entered any of the land designated as Jewish Palestine then they entered Israeli territory.​
Link to land given to a Jewish Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 Here you go for the thousandth time, why don't you save it and then you wont keep asking for it



Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:


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.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 2, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


There is nothing in your post that answers my question. It doesn't mention giving that land to the Jews.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Actually there's nothing in YOUR post which respects the topic or moderation rules. 

Lets try this again. 

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go. 

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention


Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
III Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.


Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote


Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
(a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
(b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> What part of the UNs SCR directed towards the Arab League to stop the aggression eluded you ? Oh and while you got the SCR 54 correct you sorta forgot to include the actual text, replacing it with your own BS commentary ;--)



None. Primarily because it doesn'y exist and never happened. Just another piece of make belief you've invented to persue your "theory".




Boston1 said:


> And you want to think anyone is fooled by that rather pedestrian effort to obfuscate.



Just stating facts, ma'am. The only one generating the BS is you twisting the facts to suit your own little theory. Not even the Zionist Israeli government agrees with you:

"The Israeli government view, laid out in legal memoranda issued by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is that the territories did not belong to any sovereign State at the time Israel captured them during the 1967 war. That is, Egypt did not claim the Gaza Strip, and Jordan may have claimed the West Bank, but Israel and the great majority of states did not recognize that claim; and Palestinians did not assert sovereignty to the territory at that time. In addition, UN resolutions 242 and 338, which call upon Israel to withdraw from occupied territory, did not say that other States claimed sovereignty at the time. Israel further argues that any Palestinian claims to sovereignty over the territories based upon the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 1947 were rendered invalid because the Palestinians and allied Arab states rejected the resolution and took up arms against it.

Accordingly, in the Israeli view, the Fourth Convention is inapplicable on its face, since under the second paragraph of Article 2 common to all four Conventions of 1949, the Conventions apply only to “occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party.” Formal recognition of the applicability of the Convention, Israel argued, implied a recognition of the sovereignty of the former administration."

- See more at: Crimes of War   –  Israel’s Views of the Application of IHL to the West Bank and Gaza Strip



Boston1 said:


> So having established that under the GC definition the Arab league declared war and committed acts of war against the fledgling Israeli state
> 
> And having established that as a war the GC apply.



Not so much, if at all. But good effort. 3/10


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 4, 2016)

LOL 

Those debating skills are failing you again. When cornered you write some long blithering bit of unsupported nonsense and then change the subject. 

But congrats for finally noticing that the Israeli's don't want to employ the GC. They have some long convoluted reasoning which I don't happen to agree with. 

The Israeli's need to employ the GC ASAP and rid themselves of every single Arab Muslim combatant AND their descendants immediately. 

Its perfectly legal, and settles the issue sooner rather than later. You just don't have the courage to face the fact that the Israeli's could settle this in a flash if only they'd quit coddling the Arab Muslims in Israel.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> When cornered you write some long blithering bit of unsupported nonsense and then change the subject.



Seems you're completely losing your grip on reality; accusing me of doing what you do all the time on this board, still that's to be expected from a malignant narcissistic fantasist, like yourself.

A for me I'm happy to leave it up to the casual reader to determine for themselves who has been cornered.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> ...They have some long convoluted reasoning which I don't happen to agree with.



They also have people highly qualified in international law, but hey, you clearly know best.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 4, 2016)

So, if BDS calls for boycott until Israel abides by international law, why don't they just do it?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 4, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > When cornered you write some long blithering bit of unsupported nonsense and then change the subject.
> ...








Yeah, while my favorite was when you tried to tell us that the Arab League hadn't declared war and when presented with the Arab League chairmans own words declaring it not only a war but a war of genocide against the Judaic people the best you could come up with was some lame and unfounded accusations about where the admission was published first. That one was a hoot. 

But this latest nonsense you're now trying to run up the pole is that the UN never recognized or condemned the Arab Muslim aggression. Which they most certainly did in SCR-54 



Quote


In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:
"Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptancein principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."[10]

End Quote 

Quote 


In October 1949, the Arab League declared that negotiation with Israel by any Arab state would be in violation of Article 18 of the Arab League.[11]
In April 1950, it called for severance of relations with any Arab state which engaged in relations or contacts with Israel and prohibited Member states from negotiating unilateral peace with Israel.[12]
In March 1979, it suspended Egypt's membership in the League (retroactively) from the date of its signing a peace treaty with Israel.[13]

End Quote

In the end all your obfuscating is just more hot air to avoid the topic which is that Israel should, and would be completely justified in simply employing the GC and running the Arab Muslim combatants out of Israel. 

Maybe you should read the OP again so you can begin to grasp the reasoning ;--) 

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go. 

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention


Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
III Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.


Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote


Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
(a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
(b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Yeah, while my favorite was when you tried to tell us that the Arab League hadn't declared war and when presented with the Arab League chairmans own words declaring it not only a war but a war of genocide against the Judaic people the best you could come up with was some lame and unfounded accusations about where the admission was published first. That one was a hoot.



You were quoting verbatim Eli E. Hertz' blog/website The Arab League at War with Israel I merely demonstrated he was making things up and playing fast and loose with the facts, just like our "bovine" friend here.

I'll let readers make up their own minds, "Declaration of war" or "Declaration of an intervention in order to restore the peace and the rule of law"?

_"10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:

(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;

(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.

(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.

(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.

(e) They are responsible in any … by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter."_ Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations - Wikisource, the free online library

....and this a direct announcement of,  "a war of genocide against the Judaic (whoever they are supposed to be)people " or a bombastic warning of a worst case scenario if matters continue along their current course made at least 6 months before Zionist Israel declared it's "independance"

_"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.

"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world …

"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle … or the final one… whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine months…While en route to sign the truce, I was approached by some of my comrades in arms who told me: 'Shame on you! You are a man of the people, so how could you wish to end the war … How can we live without war?' This is because war gives the Bedouin a sense of happiness, bliss, and security that peace does not provide! …

"I warned the Jewish leaders I met in London to desist from their policy, telling them that the Arab was the mightiest of soldiers and the day he draws his weapon, he will not lay it down until firing the last bullet in the battle, and we will fire the last shot …"

He [Azzam] ended his conversation with me by saying: "I foresee the consequences of this bloody war. I see before me its horrible battles. I can picture its dead, injured, and victims … But my conscience is clear … For we are not attacking but defending ourselves, and we are not aggressors but defenders against an aggression! …"_ Azzam's Genocidal Threat

UNSCR 54 The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 54; July 15, 1948 called on all fighting to stop, threatening U.N. intervention if it didn't. It came after the expiry of the first UN imposed truce. the Zionists accepted "in principle" but kept on fighting anyway (the first truce had allowed them to regroup, rearm and reorganise so any pause in hostilities worked in their favour) The Arabs, on the other hand, had not prepared for a war and had gambled on a swift early victory, and having used up most of their resources would only get weaker if the truce was extended. As events transpired both sides eventually accepted the second truce. There was no U.N. condemnation od any Arab agression in that resolution or any other at the time.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 4, 2016)

Most declarations of war don't actually use the term war. And I don't think I've ever read one that wasn't a litany of excuses for the aggressor to send in the army. 

So yeah, you just shot yourself in the foot again. 

Also the GC definition of war is very clear on this matter. 

Quote 


Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, *the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.*
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions: 
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. 
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. 
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: 
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

End Quote 

So there Spiffy ( check the highlighted area in red ) it really doesn't matter if the Arab Muslims are willing to recognize the war as a war or even if they started it, it still falls under the GC. 

Boom


----------



## Challenger (Apr 5, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Most declarations of war don't actually use the term war. And I don't think I've ever read one that wasn't a litany of excuses for the aggressor to send in the army.



Well yes they do, otherwise they wouldn't be "declarations of war".



Boston1 said:


> So yeah, you just shot yourself in the foot again.



Not so much, I just challenged your assinine assertions in posts #172 and #183 and provided evidence to support my case.



Boston1 said:


> So there Spiffy ( check the highlighted area in red ) it really doesn't matter if the Arab Muslims are willing to recognize the war as a war or even if they started it, it still falls under the GC.



Seems you now accept my position. Good, I can move on to demolish the rest of this silly thread of yours.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 5, 2016)

#1
Again not real bright. The document offered to the UN by the League of nations is most certainly a declaration of war. Simply because you don't comprehend the legal developments with the UN charter that prohibit both the threat and use of aggressive force in international conflict which made it politically disadvantageous to use the term war in the Arab League declaration, doesn't mean it wasn't a declaration of war and actually does meet the qualifications as a declaration of war because it created a condition of war.

Boom

PS
You're an idiot. I can't believe you even argued that.

#2
My assertions were that the secretary general of the Arab League stated the following which admitted the situation created by the Arab League declaration the previous day was a one of war.

Quote

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

End Quote

Which pretty well shot down any nonsense you might have forwarded denying that the Arab League had declared war on Israel and that as such the Geneva Conventions may be applied

The best you could do was drivel on about where the statement was first published ;--))

You failed completely to show that the document was not a declaration of war. You have never addressed the fact that it declared a condition of war.

You cannot deny the Arab Leagues secretary generals use of the term war in reference to the declaration or his assertions of it being a war of genocide,  instead you presented an argument about where the statements in question were first published. Hardly a viable refutation of the facts.

PS
Again, a childish obfuscation of a simple truth that didn't fool anyone.

#3
Again you are confused. At no point have you argued the GC conditions for war. Or can you provide a reference to the link where you did? My contention all along has been that it doesn't matter what the Arab Muslims argue, it only only matters what the GC defines as a state of war. That definition includes the following

Quote


Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, *the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.*
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Which fully supports my view and the view I've been forwarding throughout the thread.

You are apparently confused again as you have never as far as I've seen, supported that view.

In any case it doesn't really matter what you think as Israel with reservation has signed the conventions and as such a state of war only need be recognized by one party to the conflict in order for the conventions to apply.

Boom

Looks like once again your debating skills have failed you there Spiffy.

The Arab league did declare war
Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions
As a war the Geneva Conventions apply
The war need only be recognized by one of the parties to the conflict.

If the Israeli's deny its a war or the application of the Geneva Conventions it doesn't matter because the Arab League nations have signed as has Abbas and the Arab Muslims of Israel and if the Arab Muslims of Israel deny its a war it does't matter because Israel signed and anytime they wish to they could clear out the terrorist scum under the Geneva Conventions rules of engagement.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Try reading the full report where it does, but don't forget to read the Mandate of Palestine at the same time.


 Here is the heading again


* Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:



 Is that any clearer for you when added to the mandate that states the borders will be determined by the LoN at a future date*


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 5, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...They have some long convoluted reasoning which I don't happen to agree with.
> ...








 More qualified than you could ever be, and decidedly more qualified than any islamonazi terrorist. Which is why you don't have an argument to the Israeli position and so try and ignore it as much as possible. The fact remains the Israelis are working with the rules of IHL and the Geneva conventions at all times


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> So, if BDS calls for boycott until Israel abides by international law, why don't they just do it?








 And what international law is Israel not abiding by,  and by that I mean a real law and not a UN recommendation that has no power at all.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 5, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, while my favorite was when you tried to tell us that the Arab League hadn't declared war and when presented with the Arab League chairmans own words declaring it not only a war but a war of genocide against the Judaic people the best you could come up with was some lame and unfounded accusations about where the admission was published first. That one was a hoot.
> ...






I wont go past the first sentence.............. When did the Mandate end as I cant find any official announcement to that fact. The British handed control to the UN on May 15 1948 who promptly passed it on to another committee that as far as I am aware is still in existence and looks after the mandate of palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 5, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Most declarations of war don't actually use the term war. And I don't think I've ever read one that wasn't a litany of excuses for the aggressor to send in the army.
> ...







 In the case of the 1967 war the Egyptians committed an act of war that was the start of the upcoming war when Israel responded by invading the Sinai. That act of war was the closing of the straits to Israeli vessels that was contrary to maritime law of the time. This was voiced by the US president at the time and by the US representative at the U.N


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 5, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Well done. 

I think allot of people are confused by that actually as I've heard the Arab Muslims argument before. They seem to have very selective memories. 

I have to wonder if the entire Arab Muslim diatribe isn't dependent on half truths or outright lies. 

for instance if the 1948 Arab declaration of war is actually a declaration of war or not. It was after all a notification to the international community that a condition of war now exists between the Arab League and Israel, was it not ?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 5, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Thats an interesting point. I'd always thought the mandate expired however I've seen since being here on this particular forum several good arguments to indicate that the mandate is nothing less than a trust which transfer'd on to the UN just as you suggest. 

I'm not sure who, within the UN is holding this in trust at this point tho. The mandate was after all set to expire on May 14 1948, but apparently that doesn't mean the trust didn't pass on given that no solution was found. 

That is right up until the Arabs declared war at which point the Geneva Conventions take precedent. 

Which really muddies the waters as the defending power ( Israel ) prevailed and eventually captured territory occupied by the aggressors ( Arab Muslims ) And brings the entire show to a whole other level.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 5, 2016)

The Arab League did not declare war, they intervened in an attempt to prevent the expulsion and massacre of Muslims and Christians at the hands of the European colonists.  As is clearly stated in the declaration:

*"Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (1948)*

On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed, I have the honour to request your Excellency to bring following statement before General Assembly and Security Council.

1. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire subject to its rule of law and enjoying full representation in its parliament, the great majority of its population was composed of Arabs with a small minority of Jews enjoying all rights alike with all the remaining citizens and liable only to such charges as all others were. Never were they as minority the subject of any discrimination on account of their creed. Holy Places were protected and accessible to all without distinction.

2. The Arabs have constantly been seeking their freedom and independence; when the Second World War broke out and the Allies declared that they were fighting to restore freedom to the nations the Arabs sided with the Allies and placed all their means at their disposal and in fact fought with them for the realization of their national aspirations and their independence. Great Britain took upon herself the recognition of the independence of the Arab countries in Asia including Palestine. The Arabs’ effort was felt and duly appreciated in winning victory.

3. Great Britain issued a declaration in 1917 in which expression was made of its sympathy with the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. When this was brought to the knowledge of the Arabs they did not fail to express their resentment and opposition to such expression of policy and when they protested formally to Great Britain the latter made the necessary reassurances with a confirmation of the view that such a declaration did not affect in any degree their rights nor their freedom and independence, and that the said declaration did not prejudice the political position of the Arabs of Palestine notwithstanding the illegality of the said declaration. The British Government’s interpretation of it was that it meant no more than the establishment of a spiritual abode for the Jews in Palestine without there being any ulterior political motives such as the creation of a Jewish State, that being further the expressed views of the Jewish leaders at the time.

4. When the war ended Great Britain did not fulfil its pledges. Instead Palestine was placed under a Mandate entrusted to Great Britain. The terms of the Mandate provided for the safeguarding of the interests of the inhabitants of Palestine and their preparation for eventual independence to which they were entitled by virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations which admitted that the inhabitants of Palestine were fit for it.

5. Great Britain however placed Palestine in such a position as made it possible for the Jews to flood the country with waves of immigrants and factually helped their establishment on the soil despite the saturation of the land with its population which did exceed the absorptive capacity of the country economically and otherwise, thereby neglecting the provided for interests and the rights of its lawful inhabitants. The Arabs used all means at all times to express their deep concern and anxiety at such a policy which they felt was undermining their future and their very existence. But at all such times they were met with utter disregard and harsh treatment such as jail, exile, etc.

6. And whereas Palestine is an Arab country falling in the heart of the Arab countries and attached to the Arab world with all bonds spiritual, historical, economical and strategical, the Arab States as well as Eastern countries, whether through their people or governments, could not but concern and interest themselves with the fate of Palestine. This is why they took upon themselves the task of handling its case before the international institutions generally and particularly before Great Britain, insisting upon a solution for the problem based upon undertaking given to them and upon democratic principles. A round-table conference was held early in 1939 in London in which the Arab States took part asking for the safeguarding of the independence of Arab Palestine as a whole. That conference resulted in the issue of the well-known White Paper in which Great Britain defined its policy towards Palestine, admitting its right to independence while laying down at the same time certain provisions for the exercise of such independence. Great Britain did therein further declare that its obligations regarding the establishment of the Jewish National Home have been completely fulfilled as the said National Home had been established. But unfortunately the underlying policy of the White Paper was not carried out, which led to an increasingly bad situation and, in fact, resulted in complete prejudice and disregard to Arab interests.

7. During the time that the Second World War was raging the respective Governments of the Arab States began to co-ordinate their views and actions for the useful purpose of better securing co-operation regarding not only their present and future but for playing their part in the establishment of lasting world-wide peace. The problem of Palestine did not at any time during their mutual consultations fail to absorb its due share of attention and interest. It was a result of those consultations that then emerged the present Arab League as instrument for the realization of their own peace, security and welfare. The Arab League Charter declared that Palestine had become an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire, but that all the appertaining external rights and privileges attendant upon formal independence had to be subdued temporarily for reasons beyond the will of its people. It was a happy coincidence which gave rise to the hopes of the Arab States then that at that time the United Nations was brought to existence soon after. And accordingly the Arab States unhesitatingly participated in its creation and membership out of deep belief in that institution, its ideals, and high aims.

8. Since then the Arab League, through its member States, unceasingly endeavoured by all its means, whether with the Mandatory or with the United Nations, to find a fair and just solution for the problem of Palestine, based on democratic principles and consistent with the provisions of the League of Nations Covenant as well as of the United Nations Charter, a solution which would be lasting and would ensure peace and security in the land leading to prosperity, but such solution invariably conflicted with opposition from Zionists and with their demands as they then started to openly declare their insistence upon a Jewish State and in fact bent upon full preparations with arms and fortifications to impose their own solution by force.

9. When the General Assembly made its recommendations on 29 November 1947 for the solution of the Palestine problem on the basis of partition providing for the establishment of two States, one Arab and one Jewish, with an international regime of trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem, the Arab States expressed the warning that such a solution was prejudicial to the rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine to independence and was contradictory to democratic principles and to the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter. The Arabs then rejected such a scheme declaring that it was not susceptible of execution by peaceful means and that its imposition by force constituted a threat to peace and security in this area.

The apprehensions of the Arab States proved to be well founded as the disturbances of which they had warned soon swept the country, and armed conflict took place between its two peoples who started to combat against each other and shed each other’s blood. Consequently, the United Nations realized the mistake upon which the recommendation of partition was made and turned to search for an outlet.

10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:

*(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;*

(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and,* in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places,* as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.

(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.

(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.

(e) They are responsible in any … by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter.

Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States UN Doc. S/745, reprinted in 3 UN SCOR, Supp. for May 1948, at 83-88


----------



## Shusha (Apr 5, 2016)

Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable?  Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence?  There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable?  Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence?  There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.



I would have thought the creation of the two state solution in the mandate area was sufficient to fulfill the mandate. Jordan and Israel. But I guess not. The Arab Muslims are now demanding a third and fourth state. Anything to chip away at Israel.




montelatici said:


> The Arab League did not declare war, they intervened in an attempt to prevent the expulsion and massacre of Muslims and Christians at the hands of the European colonists.  As is clearly stated in the declaration:
> 
> *"Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (1948)*
> 
> ...



Didn't get past the first sentence

The Arab League declaration of war was filed with the UN on May 15 1948

It declared a condition of war now existed between the sovereign state of Israel and the Arab League states.

Under the GC articles it is most certainly a declaration of war as described in my previous which I'll quote again in case you missed it.


Quote

#1
Again not real bright. The document offered to the UN by the League of nations is most certainly a declaration of war. Simply because you don't comprehend the legal developments with the UN charter that prohibit both the threat and use of aggressive force in international conflict which made it politically disadvantageous to use the term war in the Arab League declaration, doesn't mean it wasn't a declaration of war and actually does meet the qualifications as a declaration of war because it created a condition of war.

Boom

PS
You're an idiot. I can't believe you even argued that.

#2
My assertions were that the secretary general of the Arab League stated the following which admitted the situation created by the Arab League declaration the previous day was a one of war.

Quote

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

End Quote

Which pretty well shot down any nonsense you might have forwarded denying that the Arab League had declared war on Israel and that as such the Geneva Conventions may be applied

The best you could do was drivel on about where the statement was first published ;--))

You failed completely to show that the document was not a declaration of war. You have never addressed the fact that it declared a condition of war.

You cannot deny the Arab Leagues secretary generals use of the term war in reference to the declaration or his assertions of it being a war of genocide, instead you presented an argument about where the statements in question were first published. Hardly a viable refutation of the facts.

PS
Again, a childish obfuscation of a simple truth that didn't fool anyone.

#3
Again you are confused. At no point have you argued the GC conditions for war. Or can you provide a reference to the link where you did? My contention all along has been that it doesn't matter what the Arab Muslims argue, it only only matters what the GC defines as a state of war. That definition includes the following

Quote


Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, *the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.*
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Which fully supports my view and the view I've been forwarding throughout the thread.

You are apparently confused again as you have never as far as I've seen, supported that view.

In any case it doesn't really matter what you think as Israel with reservation has signed the conventions and as such a state of war only need be recognized by one party to the conflict in order for the conventions to apply.

Boom

Looks like once again your debating skills have failed you there Spiffy.

The Arab league did declare war
Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions
As a war the Geneva Conventions apply
The war need only be recognized by one of the parties to the conflict.

If the Israeli's deny its a war or the application of the Geneva Conventions it doesn't matter because the Arab League nations have signed as has Abbas and the Arab Muslims of Israel and if the Arab Muslims of Israel deny its a war it does't matter because Israel signed and anytime they wish to they could clear out the terrorist scum under the Geneva Conventions rules of engagement.
End Quote


----------



## montelatici (Apr 5, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable?  Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence?  There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.
> ...



No the Arab League Declaration states clearly what it is, it is an intervention by an International Organization to restore order and stop European Jewish aggression in Palestine. Israel is not even mentioned.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable?  Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence?  There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.


Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain. There was no treaty with Israel. When Britain left Palestine it passed the torch to the UNPC to take over the administration of Palestine. However, when it was time to take over their responsibility they didn't bother to show up.

Nothing in that time period makes any sense. In the 1949 UN Armistice agreements all of Palestine was still called Palestine. Israel was not mentioned.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain.



Are you saying that a treaty is required in order for independence to occur?  Why would you think this is so?

The treaties outlined restrictions on full sovereignty and their eventual removal.  (Treaty of London 1946 and Anglo-Jordanian Treaty, 1948, yes?).  But these would be pre-requisites for sovereignty, not the obtainment of sovereignty.  

Why would there be the assumption that there were restrictions on sovereignty?  Israel was recognized by the UN in 1949. Jordan wasn't recognized until 1955.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain.
> ...


Britain assisted in establishing a government in Jordan and gave them independence through treaty.

Britain failed to establish a government in Palestine so it passed its trusteeship to the UN.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


And the Arab-Moslem squatters failed at every instance to succeed at what others have done. Failure is a common theme among Arabs-Moslems.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, you tell truths --- but only partial truths.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable?  Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence?  There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

•  Yes, Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain.  However, in 1946, Britain was still the Mandatory and Transjordan bordered another Mandate --- Iraq.  But that is only one way of assuming territorial sovereignty.

•  In the case of Israel, independence was acquired through the right of self-determination.  The Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government followed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as recommended and adopted in Resolution 181(II).  Later, in treaties established with Egypt and Jordan, border disputes were resolved and permanent international boundaries were set.​The Israel accepted the offer and recommendations adopted by the General Assembly.  As was consistent with the attitude expressed and the diplomatic history of the Arabs, they rejected all options available to them that would have led to independence and sovereignty.  

In 1949, the Armistice Arrangements were made with the State of Israel and the warring parties of the border states.  The fact that the Armistice Lines may follow (in places) the demarcation established in connection with the territories formerly under the various mandates.  "Palestine" is merely a territorial name for one particular mandate as was determined by the Allied Powers. 

•  Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
•  Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
•  Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
•  Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​
The 11 May 1949, UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), admits Israel in the UN and recalls the November 29, 1947.  The use of the name "Palestine" representing the territory that was formerly under the Mandate of that same name will always remain a historically significant name that will apply to that territory that was determined by the Allied Powers.  But it will never carry with it the implication that you attempt to attach to here in this exchange.  Each of the Armistice Agreements are between the Military Representative of the Israeli Defense Force and the Military Representative of each of the other adjacent states at war.  The implication that something special or significant pertaining to the use (of not) for the name Israel is fraudulent and politically fallacious.  

The applicability of the Mandate ended with the termination of the the Mandate to a specific Mandatory.     A Mandate is an authority and order that speaks directly to a Mandatory (in the case of Palestine --- Britain).  Upon the termination of the Mandate, the successor government (the UNPC) assumes control under Article 77 (1a) of the Charter:

Chapter XII Article 77 
1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements: 

a. territories now held under mandate; 
b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and 
c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration​As a direct result of the Arab League Military Intervention and aggression, the UN and the Security Council established the UN Mediator and Truce Commission to replace the UNPC after the outbreak of hostilities initiated by the Arab League states.  Again, the implication _("when it was time to take over their responsibility they didn't bother to show up")_ is both fraudulent and politically fallacious.  This is misinformation in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the implementation.  Never-the-less --- the expansion of territory control and sovereignty was a direct result of battlefield losses by Aggressor Arab Forces and the Israeli Defense Force hot pursuit. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 5, 2016)

Shusha,  P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, this is more misinformation.



Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting question. Jordan obtained independence by treaty with Britain.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Again, this is fraudulent and fallacious.  Customary Law says that:

*ARTICLE 3  *
Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); _Convention signed at Montevideo December 26, 1933_

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​While the treaty does not directly to the Middle East _(absent parties to the agreement)_, the concept is applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 5, 2016)

The aggressors were the European settlers.  They began evicting the native non-Jews and destroying native towns and villages.  The Arab League's intervention was in response to the ethnic cleansing (and general massacre)  of the native non-Jews by the European settlers.  British intelligence reported on the situation and recently declassified intelligence reports confirm this fact.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare *armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'............After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun,* British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes"."

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 5, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, you tell truths --- but only partial truths.
> 
> ...


The Israel accepted the offer and recommendations adopted by the General Assembly.​
*Not true.* Do you want me to pull out more things that are not true? There are many. Or perhaps you could re-post taking out everything that is false.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 5, 2016)

Yikes

Maybe you two should swap phone numbers and discuss the BS on your own time ;--) 

Neither of you seem to have any idea of the present subject or the simple facts that make the GC apply. 

Lets review

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go. 

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention


Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
III Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.


Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote


Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
(a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
(b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 5, 2016)

You haven't a clue about what you are talking about Bison.  You can't repatriate native people from their native land, it is a contradiction in terms.  You ethnically cleanse them.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 5, 2016)

montelatici said:


> You haven't a clue about what you are talking about Bison.  You can't repatriate native people from their native land, it is a contradiction in terms.  You ethnically cleanse them.



Wrong, any enemy combatant can be repatriated against their will or not. Country of origin is irrelevant to the defending party. Check the UN charter concerning every countries right to defend itself. 

And the beautiful part, is that the host nation is not responsible for determining country of origin or their place of final destination. If you believe otherwise, feel free to provide supporting documentation within the Geneva Conventions.

The ONLY legal requirement is that they be delivered to the point of egress in good condition.

So if you disagree, feel free to show us within the Geneva Conventions of course where it supports your point of view ;--) exactly as I have.

Couldn't help but notice you didn't provide one shred of supporting literature ;--)


----------



## montelatici (Apr 5, 2016)

You still haven't figured out what repatriation means.  You are hilarious.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What the hell are you talking about.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You are claiming that Israel did not accept the 181(II) criteria?
You are claiming what else is not correct?


			
				UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION --- FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
			
		

> (d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
> ...



Be specific about what YOU think is false. 

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 5, 2016)

montelatici said:


> You still haven't figured out what repatriation means.  You are hilarious.



LOL Can't help but notice you failed to respond to any of the previous or quote Geneva Convention articles supporting your view. 

Repatriation 

What requirements concerning repatriation is Israel required to fulfill ? 

Bring it on Ole Been, bring it on.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What the hell are you talking about.
> 
> ...


You are claiming that Israel did not accept the 181(II) criteria?

It is obvious that they didn't. They just lied about accepting it to pretend to have some legitimacy.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > You still haven't figured out what repatriation means.  You are hilarious.
> ...



Until you understand what the word "repatriation" means, it makes no sense addressing the rest of the nonsense you write.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I see.  This is just your interpretation of events.  ("They just lied about accepting...")



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Conflict actually began with attacks by irregular militia of Hostile Palestinian Arabs attached to the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and Israeli Forces forces. 

Israel Declared its Independence on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, and the magnitude of the conflict grew as other Arab League Forces, joining the Hostile Army Palestinians, which advanced on into the territory formerly under the Mandate.  On 15 May, the Arabs League Forces launched a series of airstrikes on Tel Aviv. This set of air actions was followed by the ground invasion by Arab League Forces from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt _(including a Saudi Arabia contingent placed under Egyptian command)_. British trained and led forces from Transjordan eventually introduced in the conflict, but only in areas that had been designated as part of the Arab State under UN Resolution 181(II) _(Part II Section "A")_ --- and --- the separated special City of Jerusalem _(Part II Section "C")_. After tense early fighting, Israeli forces, now under joint command, were able to gain the offensive.

This was the opening of the Israeli War of Independence.  As was warned by the UN Palestine Commission in First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine _(A/AC.21/ 9 S/676
16 February 1948)_, "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."  AND, in fact, even though the Arab League Forces actually lost ground that had been designated as part of the Arab State under UN Resolution 181(II) _(Part II Section "A")_ - it was partially successful in halting any further implementation of the Resolution.  The course of Israel actually fulfilling any further obligations under Resolution 181(II) was intentionally prevented by the uprising of the irregular militia of Hostile Palestinian Arabs attached to the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army --- and the introduction of Arab League Forces.

*(POLITICALLY)*

Up to that point, the Arab League, through the voice of the Arab Higher Committee _(speaking for the Arab Palestinians)_, persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”  And still today, there are opposing faction on the Israeli side, as well as the Arab-Palestinian side, that hold opposing views as to the status and impact of Resolution 181(II).  

But there is no question that the Resolution 181(II) was then ---  is now --- and will be in the future --- an important historical record of intent.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I see.  This is just your interpretation of events.  ("They just lied about accepting...")
> 
> ...


advanced on into the territory formerly under the Mandate.​
The place was Palestine. Why do you use Israel's propaganda term?

Notice that they did not say advanced into Israeli territory.

BTW, why do the propagandists say that they attacked Israel?


----------



## Challenger (Apr 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> The Conflict actually began with attacks by irregular militia of Hostile Palestinian Arabs attached to the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and Israeli Forces forces.



Really? That's one interpretation. 

The true facts however, are a bit more nuanced. The first Palestinian Muslim attack occured at 08:20 AM on November 30th (after the Partition Resolution had been passed) which made it technically the first hostile act of the civil war. Eight men led by Sief al-Din abu Kishk, killed 5 jewish colonists  and wounded several others, the same group attacked another bus killing 2 more. Later that day various groups of Palestinian gunmen sniped at Jewish buses and settlements. According to some Haganah intelligence reports (IDF achives), these events were never ordered by the AHC, ALA or HWA. Interestingly, the Haganah Intelligence Service ultimately decided that the motivation for these attacks was in fact revenge for the murder by Lehi, ten days previously ,of 5 men of the abu-Kisk tribe. The AHC response to the Partition resolution was a 3 day strike on 1st December. On the 2nd December there was a riot in Jerusalem (allegedly instigated by the Grand Mufti) when a mob attacked Jewish commercial properties during which several Jewish peole were injured. Haganah units opened fire on the rioters and the civil war escalated from then.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Hostile Army Palestinians



No such thing.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> On 15 May, the Arabs League Forces launched a series of airstrikes on Tel Aviv.


Actual fact: 2 Egyptian Spitfire Mk9s (obsolete) straffed the IAF airbase near to Tel Aviv, destroying most of the aircraft based there. The Egyptian Airforce did, however, carry out several more attacks on Tel Aviv over the days that followed.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 6, 2016)

Challenger, et al,

You are absolutely correct here.  I apologize --- my mistake.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Hostile Army Palestinians
> ...


*(COMMENT --- NO EXCUSE)*

Sometimes my fingers type faster then my mind.  My mind is beginning to get slower as Old Man Syndrome sets-in; I had a senior moment.    In this case, I meant to say "Hostile *ARAB* Palestinians (HoAP).

Apologized and thank you for the correction.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...








You seem afraid to read through the Conventions to learn what the term means Monty ;--) 

Whats wrong, worried you'll find out Israel has very specific obligations toward POWs and they don't include determining the final destination of those who qualify for repatriation ? 

Israel is only responsible for delivering them to the point of debarkation in good condition. There isn't even a requirement that there be an agreement with the country they are delivering them into.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








You still don't understand what the word "repatriation" means, so it makes no sense to debunk what you have debunked yourself.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is too funny.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > advanced on into the territory formerly under the Mandate.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The language used, and grammatically correct variation, come from the definition in the first "Palestine Order in Council of 1922" (not Israeli Propaganda).


PART I.

PRELIMINARY.

1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​By treaty, the authority to define the Mandate was stipulated as:  "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers."  It was neither a territory defined by the Arab People or the Jewish People.  So it cannot be attributed to either.

The phrase "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" was valid up to 15 May 1948 when the Mandate Terminated.  Thereafter, it was "the territory formerly under the Mandate" or some proper variation thereof; or associated as a new Trusteeship.  The language depends on whether you are looking backwards or forwards.

One of the simplest explanations of the system, that I've seen, actually came from "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  _League of Nations Mandate_;  "The mandate system was established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, entered into on 28 June 1919. With the dissolution of the League of Nations after World War II, it was stipulated at the Yalta Conference that the remaining Mandates should be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations, subject to future discussions and formal agreements. Most of the remaining mandates of the League of Nations (with the exception of South-West Africa) thus eventually became United Nations Trust Territories."  This, in effect, was the backbone behind Chapter XII of the UN Charter --- a decision made by the Heads of State from the Major Allied Powers. 

*Generalities*

All of the territories subject to League of Nations mandates were previously controlled by states defeated in World War I, principally Imperial Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The mandates were fundamentally different from the protectorates in that the Mandatory power undertook obligations to the inhabitants of the territory and to the League of Nations.

The process of establishing the mandates consisted of two phases:

The formal removal of sovereignty of the state previously controlling the territory.
The transfer of mandatory powers to individual states among the Allied Powers.

Theoretically, it could also be described as the territory formerly under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration; OR, former territory of the Ottoman Empire. 

Just because it does not fit the Arab Palestinian agenda _*(everything is theirs)*_, does not mean it is Israel Propaganda.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is too funny.
> 
> ...


The mandates were fundamentally different from the protectorates in that the Mandatory power undertook *obligations to the inhabitants* of the territory and to the League of Nations.​
And Britain said that Palestine would still be a legal entity after they left. Palestine would still be there but would not be self governing.

Considering that the denial of the *inalienable rights of the Palestinian people* to self-determination, sovereignty, independence *and return to Palestine* and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,​
Palestine is still there and the Palestinians are still Palestinians.

3.   Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the *Palestinian people* and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;​
Could we assume that their territory is Palestine. Israel has always denied the existence of Palestine and the Palestinians but that is just a bunch of lies.

Link: A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, I think you are twisting the facts and misleading people.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The link you use is a valid link, to a UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43  3 December 1982.  BUT, having said that, the Resolution A/RES/37/43 is NOT enforceable law and come six years before the PLO declares independence for Palestine.  

•  The Arab Palestinians were NEVER denied their right of self-determination.

∆  The Hostile Arab Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when:

•∆•  When they declined at least three times to participate in Article 22 Tutoring and Participation in governing process  before 1923.
•∆•  When they declined to participate in the processes under the set-up established by the Partition Plan.
•∆•  When they elected representatives to participate in the Jordanian Parliament and voted to be Annexed into the Hashemite Kingdom.
•∆•  When they declared independence in 1988 as the State of Palestine.                                                 ​•  The Arab Palestinian constantly bring-up this  UN GA/RES/37/43 Resolution as if it gives some sort of direction.  The fact is, anything can be "REAFFIRMED."  I can reaffirm that the sky is blue.  It does not mean that the sky was denied blue as a color, it is a statement of fact.   It so happens that the Citizens of the United States have the right to self-determination, just as the people called Palestinians have the right to self-determination.  It is NOT a revelation or an epiphany.   Some rights, as the Hostile Arab Palestinians have demonstrated, are regenerative and reusable (that is the meaning of "inalienable").  BUT, in our discussion here, it has no impact.
•  Finally, GA/RES/37/43 deals specifically with The United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.  (And I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to challenge the integrity of the list as being "not all inclusive.)  

*Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization)*
The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the _Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples_ (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

The Special Committee annually reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. It also hears statements from NSGTs representatives, dispatches visiting missions, and organizes seminars on the political, social and economic situation in the Territories. Further, the Special Committee annually makes recommendations concerning the dissemination of information to mobilize public opinion in support of the decolonization process, and observes the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.





Nothing in the territories, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, are considered Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs).  They are not now, nor have they ever been, subject to colonial criteria as associated with UN GA/RES/37/43 or UN GA/RES/1514(XV).  

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## montelatici (Apr 6, 2016)

More important colonies are declared as such through specific resolutions.  In United Nations resolution 2073 of 1965, Oman, which had never been placed in the category of Non-Self-Governing Territories, was considered to have the status of a colony. Similarly, Algeria was never defined as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, but the General Assembly in its resolution 1573 of 1960 recognized the need to implement the right to self-determination "on the basis of respect for the unity and territorial integrity of Algeria," it being understood that Algeria was a French colony. Palestine is also not included within the category of Non-Self-Governing Territories but still constitutes a colonial situation and is specified as such in Resolution 3092 of 1973, to wit:
_
"4. Calls upon Israel to desist immediately from the annexation and colonization of the Arab territories occupied by it since 1967, the establishment of settlements and the transfer of population to, from or within those territories, and from all the other practices referred to in paragraph 3 above;"
_
Furthermore, resolution 3525 of 1975  "urges all States to refrain from any action which Israel will exploit in carrying out its policy of colonizing the occupied territories," and resolution 34/44 1979 "reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, *of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under colonial and alien domination to self-determination".* 

General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples," is applicable to the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territory and its people; and in the preamble to resolution 34/44, the General Assembly reaffirmed the importance of the implementation of resolution 1514. To wit:

_"Considering that the activities of Israel, in particular the denial to the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and independence, constitute a serious and increasing threat to international peace and security,

Reaffirming its faith in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the importance of its implementation,..."
_
In short Rocco, your propaganda dog won't hunt.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 6, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

You make very similar mistake that our friend P F Timore makes.



montelatici said:


> More important colonies are declared as such through specific resolutions.  In United Nations resolution 2073 of 1965, Oman, which had never been placed in the category of Non-Self-Governing Territories, was considered to have the status of a colony.


*(COMMENT)*

The UK was a colonial power.  In the Question of Oman  General Assembly Resolution 2073 (XX) 17 December 1965, has very little in common with the situation looking at Israel and the Palestinian territories.  

•  GA Resolution 2073 is a non-binding resolution of 1965.
•  In 1965, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan maintained sovereignty over the West Bank (the Arab Palestinians voted in favor); and Egypt maintained control over the Gaza Strip via the Egyptian Military Governorship. 
•  Paragraph 4 of the Resolution indicates that the General Assembly believed that the presence of British Troops prevented  the population from exercising "the right of self-determination.  Clearly this has never been the case in either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.  See Posting #281 which outlines at least four instances when the Hostile Arab Palestinians exercised their right.​


montelatici said:


> Similarly, Algeria was never defined as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, but the General Assembly in its resolution 1573 of 1960 recognized the need to implement the right to self-determination "on the basis of respect for the unity and territorial integrity of Algeria," it being understood that Algeria was a French colony. Palestine is also not included within the category of Non-Self-Governing Territories but still constitutes a colonial situation and is specified as such in Resolution 3092 of 1973, to wit:
> _
> "4. Calls upon Israel to desist immediately from the annexation and colonization of the Arab territories occupied by it since 1967, the establishment of settlements and the transfer of population to, from or within those territories, and from all the other practices referred to in paragraph 3 above;"
> _
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You keep repeating the same resolutions over and over again.

•  In 1960, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was sovereign.  So the General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 is not applicable; unless you are accusing Jordan of being a Colonial Power.
•  Resolution 3525 of 1975 is non-binding and not applicable.  While the West Bank and Gaza Strip were under the effective control of Israel, the injured party by government is Jordan and Egypt; NOT the Hostile Arab Palestinians.  Jordan annexed the territory and sovereignty, while Egypt dissolved the All Palestine Government. ​Reaffirming the "inalienable rights" is just a slogan or mantra.  In theory it is applicable to all peoples everywhere.  It is like say, everyone has the right to breath.  But it lends nothing at all to the argument over the territorial control.


montelatici said:


> In short Rocco, your propaganda dog won't hunt.


*(COMMENT)*

Believe what you will.  Interpret non-binding resolutions as you will.  At the end of the day:
•  There will always be those that will defend against the terrorism based and tyrannical nature of Radical Islamic Arab, and their associated Parasitic Culture that attempt to use the color of law to assault the Jewish National Home, and assail the preservation of the Jewish People.
•  There will always be those that will confront the blackmail of the Hostile Arab Palestinians that hold regional peace for ransom:  demanding that which they could not otherwise achieve diplomatically, through negotiations, or by multiple conflicts and more than three-quarter of a century of terrorism, insurgency and asymmetric hostile activity.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 6, 2016)

Looks like Jordan is the Arab Muslim colonial government in the mandate area. With something like 75% of the Arab Muslims in Jerusalem being colonists who arrived between 1920 and 1945






Looks the vast majority of Arab Muslims in Israel are colonists. All the easier to repatriate them ;--)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You make very similar mistake that our friend P F Timore makes.
> 
> ...


Reaffirming the "inalienable rights" is just a slogan or mantra. In theory it is applicable to all peoples everywhere.​
Except for the Palestinians, of course.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Looks like Jordan is the Arab Muslim colonial government in the mandate area. With something like 75% of the Arab Muslims in Jerusalem being colonists who arrived between 1920 and 1945
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your silly Hasbara chart without a reference fools no one.



*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee*
July 25, 1926



London (Jul. 23)

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The various phases of the present situation in Palestine and in the Zionist movement throughout the world, and plans of Zionist leadership for the immediate future, were submitted for consideration at the Zionist Actions Committee which opened its session here yesterday.

The contemplated trip to the United States of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, the continuation of his efforts while in America to extend the Jewish Agency through his negotiations with the Marshall group, the possibilities of extending Jewish colonization work outside of the present Palestine frontiers, including. Transjordania and certain parts of Syria, were the main features around which the deliberations centered."

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ


----------



## montelatici (Apr 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You make very similar mistake that our friend P F Timore makes.
> 
> ...



A little table has far less force of law than a UN Resolution you silly twat.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 6, 2016)

I've referenced that chart a thousand times ;--) Just because you're not paying attention, doesn't mean the rest of us have to repeat ourselves over and over and over. 

All your hasbara nonsense simply isn't flying. 

The Jordanians who remained in Israel after the Arab Leagues first few defeats 
ARE VIRTUALLY ALL IMMIGRANTS


----------



## Challenger (Apr 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians were NEVER denied their right of self-determination.



Well yes they were, in 1936 when they rose up o throw off British rule and the rebellion was crushed. That's not a power exercising "tutelage"as part of a Mandate, that's a colonial despot denying self-determination of the indigenous population by force. 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Challenger (Apr 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Your silly Hasbara chart without a reference fools no one.


...especially as the idiot hasn't even noticed it covers the population of Jerusalem only and doesn't refer to the rest of Palestine at all. Still that's what his Hasbara playbook tells him to cite.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 7, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The Arab Palestinians were NEVER denied their right of self-determination.
> ...



The Arabs Muslims rose up as you put it long before 1936, with pogroms stretching back to the first colonization period. No thats not a power exorcising "tutelage" as part of the mandate. Thats the simple history of the Arab Muslims towards diversity. Convert or be subject to racism, bigotry and special taxes for failing to convert, assuming they don't simply kill you for not converting. If thats what you call self determination for the Indigenous Judaic people then you are one twisted pup. 

But once again your not even close to being on topic. The subject is Israel simply employing the GC in order to rid itself of all enemy combatants. Which is a right of any nation under the UN charter.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Making things up again as usual. No change there.

FYI I was responding to RoccoR's accusations,



RoccoR said:


> ...twisting the facts and misleading people.



Spooks (even retired ones) are past-masters in the art. You, on the other hand,  judging by the drivel you just posted above...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You make very similar mistake that our friend P F Timore makes.
> 
> ...


According to British and Zionist documents, colonization began three decades before the declaration of Israel. Israel continued its colonization of 1948 land between 1948 and 1967 by taking Palestinian land and building settlements and attempted to occupy Gaza during that period.

Israel had to put its colonization of the West Bank and Gaza on hold while they were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Today Israel continues to colonize 1948 Palestine and the West Bank by taking more land and building more settlements.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 7, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, you perpetual victims cannot simply see any other application of the word.  Sometimes you can be such a Philistine.



montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Jordan is the Arab Muslim colonial government in the mandate area. With something like 75% of the Arab Muslims in Jerusalem being colonists who arrived between 1920 and 1945
> ...


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 7, 2016)

Challenger et al,

Well, I'm not sure I agree with this.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The Arab Palestinians were NEVER denied their right of self-determination.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Supreme Arab Committee (SAC), which later came to be known as the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), under the presidency of the Mufti of Jerusalem (Hajj Amin al-Husseini). The Committee (SAC/AHC) decided that the Arab Strike and widespread violence which began on the 21 April 1936 should continue until Jewish immigration was suspended.

Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini was a former Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Army turned cleric.  He emerged as one of the key Arab leaders involved in promoting the 1920 Arab Riots --- inciting the Arab masses to murder Jews and encouraged the looting of Jewish homes and businesses.  Hajj Amin al-Husseini used his influence as a radical religious cleric as a stepping stone to become the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  In late September 1937, the AHC in collaboration with three of the region's key Arab leaders _(King Abdul Aziz-ibn Saud, King Ghazi of Iraq and the Emir Abdullah of Transjordan)_ used the threat of continued violence if they did not get what they wanted politically.   In part --- the conspiracy said: 

“to call upon you to resolve for peace in order to save further shedding of blood. In doing this, we rely on the good intentions of our friend Great Britain, who has declared that she will do justice. You must be confident that we will continue our efforts to assist you.”​The rioting ceased shortly after the Conspiracy note was openly published.  But not long after, the Hostile Arabs, overconfident in their ability to influence a frightened British Administration, shot and killed the District Commissioner of Galilee and his entire motorcade in Nazareth _(late September 1937)_. The British Civil Authority, within days, then made it publically known that they:"

"found it necessary to institute action against certain persons whose activities have been prejudicial to the maintenance of public security in Palestine and who must therefore be regarded as morally responsible for the campaign of terrorism and murder.”​The British Civil Authority then began taking strict countermeasures:

The AHC and the local Nations Committees were declared to be unlawful associations. 
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was removed from office as the President of the Supreme Moslem Council. Judicial Arrest Warrants warrants were issued for: 
Five members of the AHC 
Several other prominent Arab leaders. ​The Grand Mufti escaped arrest by sneaking into Lebanon (the French Mandate).  And key leader (Jamal Effendi Husseini) disappeared, and was also believed to have escaped into Syria _(later becoming the AHC Chief Delegate, 1939 London Conference)_.  Five others were apprehended and deported to the Island of Seychelles (Indian Ocean). 

What is often called an Arab Revolt is just large scale criminal activity to coerce the British Civil Administration to bend to the will of a Radical Islamic Cleric and his conspirators.  This technique of assassination, to hold Peace for Ransom, and to use the color of Radical Islamic Authority to incite large scale violence would become a traditional method of operations the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  This played out again in 1948, and in the Black September assassination and Fedayeen revolt in the 1970 conflict in Jordan.

You can dress this pig of a story of how the Arab Palestinians are so victimized; yes ---  any way you want. But!!! You'll never be able to sell it as Kosher meat.  We know that the story telling, from generation to generation, by the Hostile Arab Palestinians would rather see their culture deteriorate even further down the Human Development Index (Palestine currently #113) rather than to rally up --- in the effort to improve their people, their life style and their economy.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Leaders with vision are a source of inspiration.  They remove mental constraints of both time and foreknowledge. Creating goals allows leader to help others in making plans for achieving the end-game. 



P F Tinmore said:


> According to British and Zionist documents, colonization began three decades before the declaration of Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

IF you equate the 1922 Mandate to encourage immigration to "colonization," THEN yes --- the movement of
all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home in designated Territory to which the Mandate applied.

In fact, the _First Aliyah_ dates back to (at least) 1878 when a group Jews purchased a tract of land in the Plain of Sharon _(AKA: Sharon Valley)_, near Jaffa for more than 20 family units.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel continued its colonization of 1948 land between 1948 and 1967 by taking Palestinian land and building settlements and attempted to occupy Gaza during that period.


*(COMMENT)*

With you I am always a bit confused by your ambiguous timeline.  

•  The Gaza Strip was under the Civil Administered by the All-Palestine Government (APG) from 1948 to 1959; when the Egyptian Government dissolved the unproductive and leadership lacking APG.  From 1959 to 1967, the the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the established Military Governorship.  

•  From 1948 to 1950, the West Bank was under the effective control and occupation by the Jordan.  In 1950, Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, together with Jordanian representatives, voted to accept Jordanian Annexation.  Jordanian sovereignty did not end until 1988.​
Both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were taken under the effective control of Israel in 1967.  The effective control was unilaterally relinquished in 2005 when Israeli Forces withdrew.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel had to put its colonization of the West Bank and Gaza on hold while they were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.


*(COMMENT)*

The West Bank would probably not been taken by Israeli Forces had it not been for the fact that Jordan set artillery fire on Jerusalem.



P F Tinmore said:


> Today Israel continues to colonize 1948 Palestine and the West Bank by taking more land and building more settlements.


*(COMMENT)*

Are you suggestion that the Arab Palestinians abort the Oslo Accords that established:

Area A Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.

Area B  ≈  Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.

Area C ≈ Full Israeli civil and security control.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Leaders with vision are a source of inspiration.  They remove mental constraints of both time and foreknowledge. Creating goals allows leader to help others in making plans for achieving the end-game.
> 
> ...


Oslo.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

ICRC service​
In my view, Oslo is illegal.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The Arab Palestinians are always claiming soemone else is at fault or something is illegal that prevents them from doing this or that.  It is in keeping directly with the perpetual victim position they hold.

And as you can see here, the Arab Palestinians do not want to honor their word (agreements) or accept responsibility for any outcome.



P F Tinmore said:


> Oslo.
> 
> The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

•  *The Nobel Peace Prize 1994:  *Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin

I find it interesting that the only Nobel Prize awarded to a person representing the Palestine was Yasser Arafat for the work on the "Oslo Accords."  But according to some, the Oslo Accords are illegal, and thus the Palestinian Award should be rejected, just as they rejected so many other potential for peace. 

Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
Khalid Mish’al, Head of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)
August 2010​
"Yasser Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 1994. The ceremony which was held in Oslo, Norway, also saw Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres joining in the prize. "
*SOURCE:* *Arafat and the Nobel Peace Prize*




*SOURCE: * *The Official Website for the Nobel Prize *​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 7, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



First of all using racial slurs like "Spook" is highly offensive, even coming from a racist like yourself. 

Secondly once again your outright lies are quite easy to expose. 

How about we reference the Damascus Affair 1840, and ask ourselves where was the Zionist movement then ? 

Quote 

The *Damascus affair* of 1840 refers to the arrest of thirteen notable members of the Jewish community of Damascus who were accused of murdering a Christian monk for ritual purposes. The anti-semitic blood libel[1] resulted in the accused being imprisoned and tortured and the populace attacking and pillaging a local synagogue. The affair drew widespread international attention which resulted in negotiations conducted in Alexandria from August 4 till August 28. The aftermath secured the unconditional release and recognition of innocence for the nine prisoners remaining alive and the issuing of a firman (edict) intended to halt the spread of blood libel accusations in the Ottoman Empire.

End Quote 

Now then, you were saying ?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, you perpetual victims cannot simply see any other application of the word.  Sometimes you can be such a Philistine.
> 
> ...



The various Resolutions mentioned applied  to Oman and Algeria prior to their independence, not only Palestine and had force of law.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 7, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

As usual, you have this wrong.

GOTO:  
*Are UN resolutions binding? *
OR
Functions and powers of the General Assembly​


montelatici said:


> The various Resolutions mentioned applied  to Oman and Algeria prior to their independence, not only Palestine and had force of law.


*(COMMENT)*

When a General Assembly Resolution is brought into LAW, it will have a couple thing with it that you will not see on a non-binding resolution.




 
See the Actual UN Display:  GOTO:> 
UN Human Rights Commission Office of the High Commissioner​
You will notice that such Resolutions that transition to Laws, will have a date that it was adopted and the date it received sufficient ratifications to "ENTER INTO FORCE."  It will also have an instructional paragraph or Article that explains the process.  In the example above, it is Article 49.

You can go back to the UN General Assembly Resolutions you have cited, and you WILL NOT FIND any indication that it transitioned into law.

I hope I have explained this to you in sufficient detail.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



As usual you are laughably incorrect.

No UN general assembly resolution is binding or has the force of law. 

All UN resolutions that may eventually become law must pass through the Security Council. 

You've been informed of this countless times.

Why do you insist on lying about it ?

And your miles off topic again. Israel should a is legally able to enforce the GC in order to resolve the problem of terrorists and foreign combatants hiding within the civilian population.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> The Arab League did not declare war, they intervened in an attempt to prevent the expulsion and massacre of Muslims and Christians at the hands of the European colonists.  As is clearly stated in the declaration:
> 
> *"Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (1948)*
> 
> ...








 And the arab muslims cant do a thing as they refused to take part in any debates on apportioning the land that was sovereign to the LoN. The arab muslims never owned the land they just lived there as tenants of the Ottomans. Stop trying to confuse the issue by using recently passed laws retrospectively, if the laws did not exist then they cant be enforced. A cablegram is not a law or a resolution it is just the demands of the arab muslims of what they would do if the LoN and the UN did not give in to their demands. These were declarations of war in any persons language.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 7, 2016)

The Resolutions are just as binding as the list of non-governing territories,  several large colonies were never on the list such as Algeria and Oman (and others) make it clear that in the case of colonies the Resolutions are binding not only with respect to Algeria and Oman, but Palestine too.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Wouldn't the existence of Israel cause the Mandate to be no longer applicable?  Just as it was no longer applicable in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq when they gained independence?  There is no need for a trust once the child has, "come of age", as it were.








 No because the land was not fully sovereign and as such the mandate is still in place. The mandate did not run out when Israel declared independence as the land was still available under UN res 181. If you look you will see that the mandates ended only once the nation could show it was capable of standing on its own feet, In the case of Jordan this was not until 1946.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...







 Which they had no right to do as they had declined to become involved, as such this then became an act of war as well as being a declaration of war under International law of that time.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are always claiming soemone else is at fault or something is illegal that prevents them from doing this or that.  It is in keeping directly with the perpetual victim position they hold.
> 
> ...


Controversy surrounded Oslo from the moment it saw the light of day. The 21 October 1993 issue of the London Review of Books ran two articles; Edward Said put the case against in the first. He called the agreement "an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles",* arguing that it set aside international legality and compromised the fundamental national rights of the Palestinian people. *It could not advance genuine Palestinian self-determination because that meant freedom, sovereignty, and equality, rather than perpetual subservience to Israel.

It's now clear: the Oslo peace accords were wrecked by Netanyahu's bad faith | Avi Shlaim​----------------------------
*The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement* between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might* not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.*​
No matter how much smoke you blow at it, Oslo is illegal.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> The Resolutions are just as binding as the list of non-governing territories,  several large colonies were never on the list such as Algeria and Oman (and others) make it clear that in the case of colonies the Resolutions are binding not only with respect to Algeria and Oman, but Palestine too.



You are certifiable. 

The FACT is that general assembly resolutions HOVE NO POWER AS LAW

The FACT is that in a state of war the GENEVA CONVENTIONS are international law. 

The FACT is that the Arab declaration of war in 1948 was a declaration of war because it was a formal announcement that a condition of war existed between the sovereign state of Israel and the states of the Arab League.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 7, 2016)

Fact- The Resolutions that confirm territories as non-self governing have as much force of law as a table drawn up based on a Resolution.

Fact- Geneva Conventions are International Law

Fact- The Arab League intervened, as an International Organization, to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of the non-Jewish native Palestinians from their homes by the European Jewish colonizers.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 7, 2016)

Quote 

Fact- The Resolutions that confirm territories as non-self governing have as much force of law as a table drawn up based on a Resolution

End Quote 

Its gotta be the medications, try cutting back a little and see if you start making more sense to "normal" people. 

The subject by the way is if Israel should simply adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Sounds like you agree they should ;--)


----------



## montelatici (Apr 7, 2016)

Yes, the Israelis should repatriate the Palestinians to their native land and homes, now in Israel.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Yes, the Israelis should repatriate the Palestinians to their native land and homes, now in Israel.



LOL No something like 80+% of the Arab Muslims in Israel today colonized the area in the early to mid 20th century. Many more are likely remnants of the Arab Armies that invaded in 1948 and 67. 

Regardless of any of that the fact is that JORDAN gave ALL Arab Muslims in Israel citizenship going back to 1928. So their country of origin at this point is Jordan; even if the Jordanians illegally stripped them of that citizenship. Although I suppose we could take it back to Ottoman times when they'd be Syrians. Assuming the Arab Muslim immigrant colonists hadn't come from Egypt like Assafat did or Abbas who's likely either Lebanese or Syrian. 

What we do know for certain is that the Arab Muslims came from Arabia, which isn't even remotely Judea. So the Arab Muslims in the area can at best only be maybe <10% original population and 0% indigenous peoples.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> *The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement* between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might* not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.*​
> No matter how much smoke you blow at it, Oslo is illegal.



What "legal rights" did the Oslo Accords curtail?  Please be specific.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger et al,
> 
> Well, I'm not sure I agree with this...



Not surprising given the sources you use, talk about “twisting the facts and misleading people” let’s take this drivel apart bit by bit, shall we?



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> Supreme Arab Committee (SAC), which later came to be known as the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), under the presidency of the Mufti of Jerusalem (Hajj Amin al-Husseini).



“Supreme Arab committe”? No such thing (again). I’ll be generous and assume you meant to write “Supreme Muslim Council” but got over excited again. The Supreme Muslim Council never turned into anything but continues in existence to the present day despite being dissolved by Jordan in 1951, the Zionist resurrected it in 1967.



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> The Committee (SAC/AHC) decided that the Arab Strike and widespread violence which began on the 21 April 1936 should continue until Jewish immigration was suspended.



The Arab Higher Committee on the other hand was formed on 25th April 1936 to co-ordinate the various National Committees that sprang into existence as a result of the call for a General Strike on 19th April that year, so they couldn’t really have decided anything on the 21st April.



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini was a former Enemy Officer of the Ottoman Army turned cleric.



Erm, Not quite. Hajj Amin al-Husseini  served in the Ottoman Army until the Arab Revolt was declared and which as a Palestinian patriot he joined at the first opportunity (bit difficult for him as he was serving on the Black Sea coast at the time). For the rest of the war he fought FOR the Allies, so not really an “enemy”, neither did he “turn cleric”. At the end of the war he held several jobs including, for a short time, that of “Detective Agent” for the British administration!



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> He emerged as one of the key Arab leaders involved in promoting the 1920 Arab Riots --- inciting the Arab masses to murder Jews and encouraged the looting of Jewish homes and businesses.



No. wrong again. There is absolutely no credible (i.e. non-Zionist manufactured) evidence that he played a key role in the riots of April 1920. All he is known to have done was to make a pan-Arab inspired speech in favour of King Feisal as King of a united Syria and Palestine. He did however, help to organise anti-British demonstrations on 8th March 1920, all of which were orderly and passed peacefully. Neither the Palin nor the Haycroft commissions singled him out as inciting anything.



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> Hajj Amin al-Husseini used his influence as a radical religious cleric as a stepping stone to become the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.



Still not a cleric, radical or otherwise, at this point in time.

Amin al-Husseini was appointed as Grand Mufti when the original elections were discovered to have been “fixed” by the rival Nashashibi clan to keep the Husseinis from any powerful positions in government. The British installed him because he was pro-British and would act as a useful counter to Nashashibi hegemony.

More to follow.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 8, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> First of all using racial slurs like "Spook" is highly offensive, even coming from a racist like yourself.



Only a *true* Racist would automatically assume the word "spook" to refer to black people in a derogatory fashion. 

A 10 second internet search confirms RoccoR's  service in Military Intelligence/Counterintelligence operations in the 1980's ( i.e.Senior Special Agent & TSCM Team Chief, US Army Counterintelligence, INSCOM) which I'm sure Rocco would not deny. People in the intelligence gathering business are often called "spooks" which is why I used the word.

Thanks for "outing" yourself though, and apologies to all idiots out there, Boston1 isn't one of you; he/she/it's a genuine *moron.*


----------



## Challenger (Apr 8, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> How about we reference the Damascus Affair 1840, and ask ourselves where was the Zionist movement then ?



Not a Pogrom. Next?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 Only to those who don't like what Arafat signed away for his blood money.

 There was no compromising of the national rights as none were ever in place, so all you are doing is blowing smoke because you have nothing else to argue with


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Fact- The Resolutions that confirm territories as non-self governing have as much force of law as a table drawn up based on a Resolution.
> 
> Fact- Geneva Conventions are International Law
> 
> Fact- The Arab League intervened, as an International Organization, to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of the non-Jewish native Palestinians from their homes by the European Jewish colonizers.








 WRONG as they are just recommendations, and say as much at the very beginning.

 Correct and the Palestinians are in breach of them constantly

 They invaded illegally with the intention of wiping out the Jews, this they made plain in 1947. It was only after they had  failed to destroy the Jewish farmers on the first day and suffered many casualties that they saw they were going to lose that they changed their words.

 A state of war existed from 1947 and is still in place today.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 8, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > How about we reference the Damascus Affair 1840, and ask ourselves where was the Zionist movement then ?
> ...







 Yes a POGROM    answer the question


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Yes, the Israelis should repatriate the Palestinians to their native land and homes, now in Israel.








 Not according to the Geneva conventions if you look, any found to be hostile enemy aliens can be evicted from Israel and have no legal redress to return.   Once they produce their land titles to their property in Israel they will either be welcomed back under the UN rules or compensation paid by all parties.

Still cant see how a Syrian can point to a toilet window in a complex built in 1993 and claim that it was his bedroom window when he lived there in 1945. Maybe monte can help explain the discrepancies in the Palestinians stories ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 8, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger et al,
> ...










 OOOOOPS rat boy gets it wrong again



Arab Higher Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Challenger (Apr 8, 2016)

Phoenall said:
			
		

> OOOOOPS rat boy gets it wrong again
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Higher Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



...and now we have an illiterate moron posting. Read my post dummy.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 8, 2016)

Looks like your debating skills are faltering again. Is "read my post dummy" really the best you can do when someone only needs a sentence or two to show your post was pure nonsense ?

The subject, which you are desperate to avoid is clearly stated in the OP.

So *"read my post dummy"*

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention


Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
III Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.


Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote


Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
(a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
(b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> In late September 1937, the AHC in collaboration with three of the region's key Arab leaders (King Abdul Aziz-ibn Saud, King Ghazi of Iraq and the Emir Abdullah of Transjordan) used the threat of continued violence if they did not get what they wanted politically. In part --- the conspiracy said:
> 
> “to call upon you to resolve for peace in order to save further shedding of blood. In doing this, we rely on the good intentions of our friend Great Britain, who has declared that she will do justice. You must be confident that we will continue our efforts to assist you.”



Not quite sure where to begin unravelling this distortion of the facts. 

By October 1937 over 1000 Palestinians, 87 Jewish colonists and 37 British has been killed in the course of the uprising. The Palestinian populace had grown weary of further struggle, especially when the British threatened to introduce martial law, reinforcing their garrison to 20,000 troops 9against a total of 2000 Palestinian rebels (from all groups, both Muslim and Christian). The AHC started to look for a face saving way out and appealed to the neighbouring kingdoms for assistance they responded with an appeal to the AHC to call of the strike and rebellion, this appeal was reproduced on page 202 of the Peel commission report and included the text,

“...to call upon you to resolve for peace in order to save further shedding of blood. In doing this, we rely on the good intentions of our friend Great Britain, who has declared that she will do justice. You must be confident that we will continue our efforts to assist you.”

The only “conspiracy” was to end the fighting without humiliating the AHC



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> The rioting ceased shortly after the Conspiracy note was openly published. But not long after, the Hostile Arabs, overconfident in their ability to influence a frightened British Administration, shot and killed the District Commissioner of Galilee and his entire motorcade in Nazareth (late September 1937).



Again, misleading as RoccoR totally ignores the circumstances surrounding this event. Firstly the general economic collapse caused by the strike and fighting created mass unemployment amongst the Palestinian population, that coupled with Zionist land purchases and expulsions of Palestinian tenant farmers, meant that a quarter of Palestine’s rural population had been dispossessed and had gravitated to the cities. There they perceived the British favouring Jewish workers over them for scarce jobs and this caused further resentment. In May 1937 the hunger strike by 180 political prisoners inflamed emotions amongst the Muslim and Christian Palestinian population, but to cap it all off the spark that reignited the rebellion was the rumour that the Peel Commission was going to recommend partition; giving the Jewish immigrants the best farmland in Palestine and the British control over the “holy places” 

When violence erupted again in July and August 1937 the Grand Mufti broadcast appeals for calm and restraint and condemned acts of terror, even those committed in retaliation for Jewish terrorist attacks. L.Y. Andrews, the District Commissioner for Galilee was a victim of one of these terrorist attacks, carried out by Palestinian extremists. The AHC and the Mufti issued a statement of condemnation for the murder but by then the British had got the excuse they were looking for and...



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> The British Civil Authority, within days, then made it publically known that they: "found it necessary to institute action against certain persons whose activities have been prejudicial to the maintenance of public security in Palestine and who must therefore be regarded as morally responsible for the campaign of terrorism and murder.”



Interesting use of the word “morally” in that statement.



			
				 RoccoR said:
			
		

> The British Civil Authority then began taking strict countermeasures:..



Yes they did, this part is the only accurate bit in the post. 

Also included in these actions however was that the British also expelled Palestinian civil government from most cities and towns leaving a power vacuum in Palestinian civil society. The Palestinians fought back nevertheless and seized towns and cities in an attempt to liberate the country. To suppress this attempt at self determination the British brought in Two Divisions of British troops, Squadrons of RAF fighters and bombers, the whole Palestine Police force, the Trans-Jordanian Frontier Force and 6000Jewish “auxilliries”.  Heavily outnumbered and outgunned, their leadership in exile, dead, or in prison, the rebellion was crushed.



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> What is often called an Arab Revolt is just large scale criminal activity...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



This last is RoccoR’s personal interpretation of events as he would like to see them, so I won't comment other than to say he’s entitled to his opinions, even if they don’t marry up with the facts in the historical record.

Anyone interested in reading up about this historical event, and making up their own mind, there are plenty of good history books available and as I’m often accused of being a clandestine salesman for Amazon.com, PM me if you’re interested and I’ll give you a list.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 8, 2016)

The fact is that Israel is well within its rights to employ the Geneva Conventions, segregate combatants from noncombatants within the Arab Muslim population and repatriate the hostiles.

You might want to actually read the Geneva Conventions or as you so eloquently put it, read my post dummy. 

Problem solved.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 8, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








 I did rat boy and I cleared up your misconceptions, or where they outright lies because you didn't have an adult intelligent reply.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 8, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



He appears to be having trouble following the topic. 

Israel only need apply the Geneva Conventions to be within international law in a time of war. 

Round up the hostiles and throw the bums out.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 8, 2016)

Has difficulty understanding the Geneva Conventions and what the word "repatriation" means.

Muslims and Christians (non-Jews) in the territory ruled by Israel cannot, by definition, be "repatriated", they are already in their native land. Besides the only sovereign "Power" is Israel, so there is no other party to the conflict that could be considered an opposing "Power".


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Has difficulty understanding the Geneva Conventions and what the word "repatriation" means.
> 
> Muslims and Christians (non-Jews) in the territory ruled by Israel cannot, by definition, be "repatriated", they are already in their native land. Besides the only sovereign "Power" is Israel, so there is no other party to the conflict that could be considered an opposing "Power".









 And they first have to prove that they are residents, without any form of title they would fail. But they can be evicted to another nation that they have elected that will take them in. If none is found then they have no nation and have to exist on UNWRA handouts.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Has difficulty understanding the Geneva Conventions and what the word "repatriation" means.
> 
> Muslims and Christians (non-Jews) in the territory ruled by Israel cannot, by definition, be "repatriated", they are already in their native land. Besides the only sovereign "Power" is Israel, so there is no other party to the conflict that could be considered an opposing "Power".



Repatriation seems to be a really hard concept for you. 

What it doesn't mean is that Israel is responsible for maintaining a hostile force as anything but prisoners of war. Nor does it mean there is anything but the Geneva Conventions to define how those prisoners are treated 

So why don't you go read the Conventions and actually gain an understanding of what the act of "repatriation" is and what it isn't.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 8, 2016)

I have read the Geneva Conventions and have forgotten more about them than you will ever learn.  You, on the other hand, have yet to understand what repatriation means.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> I have read the Geneva Conventions and have forgotten more about them than you will ever learn.  You, on the other hand, have yet to understand what repatriation means.




Excellent, so why don't you tell us with references of course, just where it says Israel is not allowed to repatriate enemy combatants ?

Oh and here's a little ditty you might find interesting.

Quote


A. ' Special Principles for Repatriation '
The following shall be repatriated:
1. All prisoners of war suffering the following effective or functional disabilities as the result of organic injuries: loss of a limb, paralysis, articular or other disabilities, when the defect is at least the loss of a foot or a hand, or the equivalent of the loss of a foot or a hand.
2. All wounded or injured prisoners of war whose condition is such as to render them invalids whose cure within a year cannot be medically foreseen.
3. All sick prisoners whose condition is such as to render them invalids whose cure within a year cannot be medically foreseen.
The following in particular belong to this category:
(a) Progressive tuberculosis of any organ which, according to medical prognosis, cannot be cured or at least considerably improved by treatment in a neutral country;
(b) Non-tubercular affections of the respiratory organs which are presumed to be incurable (in particular, strongly developed pulmonary emphysema, with or without bronchitis, bronchiectasis, serious asthma, gas poisoning, etc.):
(c) Grave chronic affections of the circulatory organs (for example: valvular affections with a tendency to compensatory troubles, relatively gave affections of the myocardium, pericardium or the vessels, in particular, aneurism of the larger vessels which cannot be operated on, etc.);
(d) Grave chronic affections of the digestive organs;
(e) Grave chronic affections of the urinary and sexual organs, in particular, for example: any case of chronic nephritis, confirmed by symptoms, and especially when cardiac and vascular deterioration already exists; the same applies to chronic pyelitis and cystitis, etc.;
(f) Grave chronic maladies of the central and peripheral nervous system; in particular grave neurasthenia and hysteria, any indisputable case of epilepsy, grave Basedow's disease, etc.;
(g) Blindness of both eyes, or of one eye when the vision of the other is less than 1 in spite of the use of corrective glasses. Diminution of visual acuteness in cases where it is impossible to restore it by correction to an acuteness of 1/2 in at least one eye. The other ocular affections falling within the present category (glaucoma, iritis, choroiditis, etc.);
(h) Total bilateral deafness, and total unilateral deafness in cases where the ear which is not completely deaf cannot hear ordinary speaking voice at a distance of one metre;
(i) Any indisputable case of mental affection;
(k) Grave cases of chronic poisoning by metals or other causes (lead poisoning, mercury poisoning, morphinism, cocainism, alcoholism, gas poisoning, etc.);
(l) Chronic affections of the locomotive organs (arthritis deformans, gout, or rheumatism with impairment, which can be ascertained clinically), provided that they are serious;
(m) Malignant growths, if they are not amenable to relatively mild operations without danger to the life of the person operated upon;
(n) All cases of malaria with appreciable organic deterioration (serious chronic enlargement of the liver or spleen, cachexy, etc.);
(o) Grave chronic cutaneous affections, when their nature does not constitute a medical reason for treatment in a neutral country;
(p) Serious avitaminosis (beri-beri, pellagra, chronic scurvy).
B. ' Special Principles for Accommodation in a Neutral Country. '
Prisoners of war shall be accommodated in a neutral country if they suffer from the following affections:
1. All forms of tuberculosis of any organ, if, according to present medical knowledge, they can be cured or their condition considerably improved by methods applicable in a neutral country(altitude, treatment in sanatoria, etc.).
2. All forms necessitating treatment of affections of the respiratory, circulatory, digestive, genito-urinary, or nervous organs, of the organs of the senses, or of the locomotive or cutaneous functions, provided that such forms of affection do not belong to the categories necessitating direct repatriation, or that they are not acute maladies (properly so called) susceptible of complete cure. The affections referred to in this paragraph are such as admit, by the application of methods of treatment available in the neutral country, of really better chances of the patient's recovery than if he were treated in captivity.
Special consideration should be given to nervous troubles, the effective or determining causes of which are the effects of the war or of captivity, such as psychasthenia of prisoners of war or other analogous cases.
All duly established cases of this nature must be treated in neutral countries when their gravity or their consitutional character does not render them cases for direct repatriation.
Cases of psychasthenia of prisoners of war who are not cured after three months' sojourn in a neutral country, or which after that period are not manifestly on the way to complete recovery, shall be repatriated.
3. All cases of wounds or injuries or their consequences which offer better prospects of cure in a neutral country than in captivity, provided that such cases are neither such as justify direct repatriation, nor insignificant cases.
4. All duly established cases of malaria which do not show organic deterioration clinically ascertainable (chronic enlargement of the liver or spleen, cachexy, etc.), if sojourn in a neutral country offers particularly favourable prospects of final cure.
5. All cases of poisoning (in particular by gas, metals, or alkaloids) for which the prospects of cure in a neutral country are especially favourable.
The following are excluded from accommodation in a neutral country:
1. All cases of duly established mental affections.
2. All organic or functional nervous affections which are reputed to be incurable. (These two categories belong to those which entitle direct repatriation).
3. Grave chronic alcoholism.
4. All contagious affections during the period when they are transmissible (acute infectious diseases, primary and secondary (syphilis, trachoma, leprosy, etc.).
III. General Observations
The conditions stated above must, in a general way, be interpreted and applied in as broad a spirit as possible.
This breadth of interpretation must especially be applied in neuropathic or psychopathic cases caused or aggravated by the effects of war or captivity (psychasthenia of prisoners of war), and in cases of tuberculosis in all degrees.
It is obvious that camp doctors and mixed medical commissions may find themselves faced with many cases not mentioned amongst the examples given under Section II above, or with cases that cannot be assimilated to these examples. The above-mentioned examples are only given as typical examples; a similar list of surgical disabilities has not been drawn up because, apart from cases which are indisputable on account of their very nature (amputations), it is difficult to draw up a list of specified types; experience has shown that a list of such specified cases was not without inconvenience in practice.
Cases not conforming exactly with the examples quoted shall be determined in the spirit of the guiding principles given above.

End Quote

In the end if a POW has a hangnail they qualify for repatriation. ;--)

I'll leave it up to you to explain to us, now that we know a little more about who qualifies to be repatriated, who else might qualify.

Or maybe you can explain to us just why any of your little friends don't qualify as POWs

III GC 
Quote 

ARTICLE 4 
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8 [ Link ] , 10 [ Link ] , 15 [ Link ] , 30, fifth paragraph [ Link ] , 58 [ Link ] -67, 92 [ Link ] , 126 [ Link ] and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 [ Link ] of the present Convention.


End Quote


----------



## montelatici (Apr 8, 2016)

Israel may certainly repatriate enemy combatants.  You just don't know what repatriation means.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Israel may certainly repatriate enemy combatants.  You just don't know what repatriation means.



LOL so you still haven't figured it out yet eh.

Well when you find exactly what a countries responsibilities are towards repatriating combatants. I'm sure you'll let us know LOL

PS
I suspect you've never read the conventions and don't have a clue.

How about if I help you out a little

Art 118 III GC

Quote


Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
*In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.*
In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
(a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
(b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

So how does Article 117 read ? ;--)

Quote

No repatriated person may be employed on active military service.

End Quote

Our take away on this article is that the detaining power may on its own "establish and execute" a plan for repatriation. You are welcome to try and find a stipulation within the conventions concerning any limitations that "plan of repatriation" may entail. 

Need another hint ;--) 

So what if the detaining power refuses to allow the POW residence within its area of control.

IV GC Art 134 and a few bonus articles ;--) for your reading pleasure

Quote


Art. 132. Each interned person shall be released by the Detaining Power as soon as the reasons which necessitated his internment no longer exist.
The Parties to the conflict shall, moreover, endeavour during the course of hostilities, to conclude agreements for the release, the repatriation, the return to places of residence or the accommodation in a neutral country of certain classes of internees, in particular children, pregnant women and mothers with infants and young children, wounded and sick, and internees who have been detained for a long time.
Art. 133. Internment shall cease as soon as possible after the close of hostilities.
Internees in the territory of a Party to the conflict against whom penal proceedings are pending for offences not exclusively subject to disciplinary penalties, may be detained until the close of such proceedings and, if circumstances require, until the completion of the penalty. The same shall apply to internees who have been previously sentenced to a punishment depriving them of liberty.
By agreement between the Detaining Power and the Powers concerned, committees may be set up after the close of hostilities, or of the occupation of territories, to search for dispersed internees.
*Art. 134. 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.*
Art. 135. The Detaining Power shall bear the expense of returning released internees to the places where they were residing when interned, or, if it took them into custody while they were in transit or on the high seas, the cost of completing their journey or of their return to their point of departure.
*Where a Detaining Power refuses permission to reside in its territory to a released internee who previously had his permanent domicile therein, such Detaining Power shall pay the cost of the said internee's repatriation.* If, however, the internee elects to return to his country on his own responsibility or in obedience to the Government of the Power to which he owes allegiance, the Detaining Power need not pay the expenses of his journey beyond the point of his departure from its territory. The Detaining Power need not pay the cost of repatriation of an internee who was interned at his own request.
If internees are transferred in accordance with Article 45, the transferring and receiving Powers shall agree on the portion of the above costs to be borne by each.
The foregoing shall not prejudice such special agreements as may be concluded between Parties to the conflict concerning the exchange and repatriation of their nationals in enemy hands.

End Quote

Our take away here is that the detaining power has the right to refuse to allow a POW to remain within the area of control, and that the cost of repatriation to the point of debarkation is the responsibility of the detaining power. 

So lets hear it Monty. How can a POW be repatriated to a place other than his last place of residence ? Where does the POW get repatriated too ?


----------



## Shusha (Apr 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Israel may certainly repatriate enemy combatants.  You just don't know what repatriation means.









Monte, out of curiosity, just what do YOU think "repatriation" means?  Because I'm pretty sure you are actually mixing it up with something else, perhaps, "point of departure".


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 8, 2016)

He doesn't have a clue Shusha

Quote

repatriation a person's return, voluntary or otherwise, to the country of which he is a national.

Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

End Quote

Or how about another one

Quote

Takes place when a person who has been expatriated, regains his nationality

The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.


Law Dictionary: What is REPATRIATION? definition of REPATRIATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

End Quote

I could spend a while making note of all the stipulations concerning neutral third parties but Monty ole Been wouldn't comprehend those either.

The simple fact is the last country of nationality is Jordan and Israel need not make any special agreements with Jordan to repatriate the Hostile Arab muslims.

Israel is only required to deliver the POWs to the point of embarkation in good condition.

There is nothing within the conventions that requires Israel to determine a POWs final destination.

Also Israel is free to develop and execute its own plan of repatriation given that the belligerent parties don't have a framework agreement as stipulated in the above art cited.

IE
Monty doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and certainly can't form a rebuttal based on the articles because he's obviously unfamiliar with the Geneva Conventions.

He'll have trouble with the concept that the Arab Muslims of Israel were illegally stripped of their nationality by Jordan after having been Jordanian national since its inception in 1928. Or that as Jordanian citizens thats exactly where they should be repatriated to IF and ONLY IF thats how the Israeli repatriation plan reads, its entirely up to them. Israel can actually repatriate them to just about any debarkation point they chose. 

He'll then blither on about Arab Muslim nationality in Israel. Which is a non issue since the vast majority of Arab Muslims refused Israeli citizenship and Israel doesn't recognize a state of Arab Muslims in Israel. 

Also the conventions do not require there to be an agreement between combatant nations prior to repatriation. Israel also has the right to refuse repatriated persons within its area of control. 

Which brings us back to Israel collecting up the hostile Arabs, declaring them POWs and throwing the bums out.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 9, 2016)

The whole question hinges on the citizenship of the people you want to repatriate, though.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 9, 2016)

Shusha said:


> The whole question hinges on the citizenship of the people you want to repatriate, though.



Actually not. 

Israel is allowed to repatriate POWs even if there is no agreement for repatriation between the belligerent parties. 

Nowhere do the conventions require Israel to determine a place of final destination or nationality. 

It actually allows Israel to *establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation*

The GC do not stipulate the contents of that plan, nor do they stipulate that repatriation needs to be anything more than delivering POWs to the nearest point of debarkation from the area within its control in good condition. 

Lets read it again 

Quote 

*In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation*

End Quote 

Israel may act unilaterally to repatriate enemy combatants. 

Israel may develop and execute a plan of repatriation unilaterally  

Israel may refuse to allow repatriated POWs from remaining within its area of control 

Nowhere does it say Israel is responsible for determining the final destination of POWs once they leave its area of control ;--) Quite the contrary, Israel is free to develop and execute a plan of repatriation which may or may not include any stipulations concerning country of origins.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 9, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Israel may certainly repatriate enemy combatants.  You just don't know what repatriation means.








 Removal without duress to another nation that will take in the person, normally that persons home nation but not exclusively so


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 9, 2016)

Not entirely accurate

Instances of forced repatriation are very well documented and have been found by human rights courts to be perfectly legal.

Lets read it again

Quote

*Where a Detaining Power refuses permission to reside in its territory to a released internee who previously had his permanent domicile therein, such Detaining Power shall pay the cost of the said internee's repatriation. If, however, the internee elects to return to his country on his own responsibility or in obedience to the Government of the Power to which he owes allegiance, the Detaining Power need not pay the expenses of his journey beyond the point of his departure from its territory.*
End Quote

A Israel is not required to offer residence to enemy combatants

B Israel may repatriate enemy combatants Whether they agree on where they are going or not.

III GC Art 7 

Quote 

Art 7. Prisoners of war *may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention*, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote 

The costs and circumstances of repatriation are ambiguous at best. Given that lacking any agreements between the belligerents Israel is allowed under the conventions to develop and execute a plan of repatriation as they see fit.

IE pack them up and throw them out the nearest exit.

The first step is indivudually determining each Arab Muslims status as either combatant ( legal or illegal ) or civilian ( Citizen or refugee ) After which those who qualify ( and their descendants ) *"must be repatriated without delay"
*
In many cases of war or conflict certain odious persons finding themselves POWs would face forced repatriation. This was actually common in WWII

Quote 

Soviet subjects who had volunteered for German Army _Ostlegionen_ and/or _Waffen SS_ units were forcibly repatriated. These included Russian Cossacks of the XVth SS Cossack Cavalry Corps with their relatives were transported from the Western occupation zones of Allied-occupied Austria to the Soviet occupation zones of Austria and Allied-occupied Germany. Among those handed over were White émigré-Russians who had never been Soviet citizens, but who had fought for Nazi Germany against the Soviets during the war, including General Andrei Shkuro and the Ataman of the Don Cossack host Pyotr Krasnov. This was done despite the official statement of the British Foreign Office policy after the Yalta Conference that only Soviet citizens, who had been such after 1 September 1939, were to be compelled to return to the Soviet Union or handed over to Soviet officials in other locations (see the Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II).

End Quote 

The issue of forced repatriation was litigated and found to be legal and NOT A WAR CRIME 

Quote 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called this operation "the last secret of World War II."[5] He contributed to a legal defence fund set up to help Nikolai Tolstoy, who was charged with libel in a 1989 case brought by Lord Aldington over war crimes allegations made by Tolstoy related to this operation. Tolstoy lost the case in the British courts; he avoided paying damages by declaring bankruptcy.[6]

End Quote 

The case was additionally reviewed by the European court of human rights who determined the verdict valid but the penalty excessive 

Quote 

In July 1995, the European Court of Human Rights concluded unanimously that the British Government had violated Tolstoy's rights in respect of Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, although this referred strictly to the amount of the damages awarded against him and *did not overturn the guilty verdict of his libel action*. _The Times_ commented in a leading article:

_In its judgment yesterday in the case of Count Nikolai Tolstoy, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Britain in important respects, finding that the award of £1.5 million levelled against the Count by a jury in 1989 amounted to a violation of his freedom of expression. Parliament will find the implications of this decision difficult to ignore._

Tolstoy refused to pay anything in libel damages to Lord Aldington while the latter was alive. On 9 December 2000, two days after Aldington's death, Tolstoy paid £57,000 to Aldington's estate.[17]

End Quote


----------

