# What Would Happen if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan?



## Shusha

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

How would that change or affect the conflict?  

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

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

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

What does everyone think will happen?


----------



## Roudy

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


----------



## SassyIrishLass

It still won't stop the hate.


----------



## jillian

Shusha said:


> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?



why on earth would they do that?

of course, jordan could give land to the pals since the pals are really jordanian but jordan doesn't want them.


----------



## Boston1

Don't do it.

Not one more inch

Either the UN or Israel should determine the refugee status of all palestinians by virtue of their ever having or their forfathers ever having engaged in hostilities or been suspected of engaging or lending aid in hostilities against the Israeli state.

And throw the bums out.

Neither the UN nor the Geneva conventions require Israel to be housing combatants or descendants of combatants or those even suspected of aiding combatants legal or illegal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Jordan doesn't want it, or the Pallies living on it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Roudy said:


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



Nah, keep all the land, ship the Pallies all to Syria. I hear there's room.


----------



## aris2chat

Roudy said:


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




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


----------



## The Rabbi

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea.  Take half the West Bank and give the other half to Jordan, and let them sort it out.  I'm sure Jordan would be happy for the extra land, since they have about a million Syrian refugees they had to take in recently.  The Palestinians would be happy too since they would be ruled by Muslims as opposed to Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, keep all the land, ship the Pallies all to Syria. I hear there's room.
Click to expand...

Jordan has already rejected that option.
No one wants the Palestinians.  They are the inner city Negroes of the Middle East.


----------



## Lipush

Jordan doesn't want the WB or the headache of the Palestinians living there.


----------



## RoccoR

aris2chat, Roudy, et al,

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

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


aris2chat said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea.  Take half the West Bank and give the other half to Jordan, and let them sort it out.  I'm sure Jordan would be happy for the extra land, since they have about a million Syrian refugees they had to take in recently.  The Palestinians would be happy too since they would be ruled by Muslims as opposed to Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan tried to give palestinians citizenship, but that did not work out well and ended up killing some 20,000 or so PLO fighters after black September
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

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

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

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1

I think it goes a bit beyond just that Rocco. International law allows for some instances where a citizen in declared persona non gratis and can be stripped of their citizenship and expelled from their former country. But there are some odd ball rules surrounding it, like how many generations you've been a citizen and whatever.

But the same does not apply to non citizens or permanent residents.

So the stronger element of international law as does the geneva conventions allow of the expulsion of enemies of the state

See
Principles of International Law - Page 248 - Google Books Result

While Jordan was created under the mandate for palestine its just as obligated to accept the palestinians as the Israeli's are except for one thing. These particular palestinians must be judged under either the mandate or under the geneva conventions as individuals. While Israel has the wider brush so to speak for expulsion Jordan as the sister nation of palestine is the next most responsible party to provide refuge for its own people. 

And yes I'm talking about what no one wants to discuss. Anexation of the disputed territories and expulsion of any hostiles suspected hostiles or those suspected of assisting hostiles under the Geneva conventions rules for war.

The situation has gone on long enough and IMHO its high time something a little more drastic be done.

All within established international law of course.

Throw the bums out

And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.


----------



## aris2chat

RoccoR said:


> aris2chat, Roudy, et al,
> 
> Well --- I think our friend "aris2chat" is very much on track.
> 
> *Disengagement:* *Office of History, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*
> On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.​
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea.  Take half the West Bank and give the other half to Jordan, and let them sort it out.  I'm sure Jordan would be happy for the extra land, since they have about a million Syrian refugees they had to take in recently.  The Palestinians would be happy too since they would be ruled by Muslims as opposed to Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan tried to give palestinians citizenship, but that did not work out well and ended up killing some 20,000 or so PLO fighters after black September
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians would be happy --- and I'm not sure that the Jordanians would give it any serious consideration.  The Kingdom tried to help the Arab Palestinians once before and were given nothing but disrespect, violent insurrection, and trouble for their efforts.
> 
> Why would the Kingdom even consider trusting the people of the West Bank?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Why Is Jordan Keeping Out Palestinian Refugees?
Jordan: We Do Not Want Palestinians
Jordan: We do not want Palestinians


----------



## Indeependent

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


----------



## RoccoR

Boston1,  et al,

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

*A Weapon to Destroy Israel: 
Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
(Downloadable at this link.)​
"If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)

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

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


Boston1 said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

It is about moral and ethical mind sets.

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

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

aris2chat,  et al,

There are a number of reasons for this.



aris2chat said:


> Why Is Jordan Keeping Out Palestinian Refugees?
> Jordan: We Do Not Want Palestinians
> Jordan: We do not want Palestinians


*(COMMENT)*

The most compelling reason is that they turned-out to be Black September 1970.  The PLO Fedayeen Fighters of the early 1970s attempted to over-through the Jordanian Kingdom.   Black September's (BSO) assault on the Olympic Village apartments on September 5, 1972, and carried-out a couple of aircraft hijackings that were not in Jordan's best interest.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy

RoccoR said:


> aris2chat, Roudy, et al,
> 
> Well --- I think our friend "aris2chat" is very much on track.
> 
> *Disengagement:* *Office of History, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*
> On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.​
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea.  Take half the West Bank and give the other half to Jordan, and let them sort it out.  I'm sure Jordan would be happy for the extra land, since they have about a million Syrian refugees they had to take in recently.  The Palestinians would be happy too since they would be ruled by Muslims as opposed to Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan tried to give palestinians citizenship, but that did not work out well and ended up killing some 20,000 or so PLO fighters after black September
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians would be happy --- and I'm not sure that the Jordanians would give it any serious consideration.  The Kingdom tried to help the Arab Palestinians once before and were given nothing but disrespect, violent insurrection, and trouble for their efforts.
> 
> Why would the Kingdom even consider trusting the people of the West Bank?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## Indeependent

Roudy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat, Roudy, et al,
> 
> Well --- I think our friend "aris2chat" is very much on track.
> 
> *Disengagement:* *Office of History, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*
> On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.​
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea.  Take half the West Bank and give the other half to Jordan, and let them sort it out.  I'm sure Jordan would be happy for the extra land, since they have about a million Syrian refugees they had to take in recently.  The Palestinians would be happy too since they would be ruled by Muslims as opposed to Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan tried to give palestinians citizenship, but that did not work out well and ended up killing some 20,000 or so PLO fighters after black September
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians would be happy --- and I'm not sure that the Jordanians would give it any serious consideration.  The Kingdom tried to help the Arab Palestinians once before and were given nothing but disrespect, violent insurrection, and trouble for their efforts.
> 
> Why would the Kingdom even consider trusting the people of the West Bank?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once their plan to destroy the Jewish state failed, the Jordanains occupied the West Bank, and according to Palestinian leaders, kept their people in "concentration camp conditions" for 20 years.  Which gave rise to Black September in which the Jordanians killed over 20,000 Palestinians.
> 
> So of course there is a lot of bad blood between them, however this conflict has always been about religious intolerance and Muslim Arab inability to accept a Jewish state of any sort in the region.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Boston1

RoccoR said:


> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel cannot afford to be complacent


----------



## Shusha

Oh, don't misunderstand me, I know Jordan would never go for it.  Its just a thought experiment.  In particular, I was thinking about the response of the Palestinians  -- would it become more obvious under Jordan's rule that they really don't care about a state of their own but only to get rid of the Jewish one.  And would the outcry of the international community change if it shifted from Israel to Jordan?  Would there be worldwide boycotts and protests about Jordan not giving Palestine a state?


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?




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

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


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?







 The muslims would immediately mobilise and attack Israel at its weakest point from the high ground. It would put Tel Aviv in range of even short range missiles and would see the destruction of Israel within 6 months. Jordan has already given away the west bank and would not want it back unless the Palestinians were not part of the deal.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought.  Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?
> 
> But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?
Click to expand...

 
That offer was also quickly taken back because of hamas actions in the Sinai.  Hamas cannot be trusted and refuses to cooperate with the PA, Egypt or anyone else for the sake of peace.


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one

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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
Click to expand...


Your premise is incorrect.

You are assuming it is "their land".

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

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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
Click to expand...


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

Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.

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

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

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

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


----------



## Muhammed

Shusha said:


> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?


They would mortar the hell out of Israel from Golan Heights.


----------



## proudveteran06

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought.  Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?
> 
> But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?
Click to expand...



https://www.commentarymagazine.com/...st/is-the-arab-peace-plan-really-about-peace/

This is why there will never be " peace"


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
Click to expand...


It would be ethnic cleansing.


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be ethnic cleansing.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. It would be the somewhat less than timely application of international law. IMHO this should have been done immediately after each flare up of Arab violence within the Israeli controlled mandate area.
> 
> Also, I think its important to note that the ONLY criteria for repatriation would be prisoner of war status, which is a determination made based on actions not ethnicity.
> 
> Unless you want to consider country of origin an ethnic instead of national designation. Which I'm not sure is accurate. I can be say, of Italian descent but a citizen of the US. In which case my country of origin is the US.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. It would be the somewhat less than timely application of international law. IMHO this should have been done immediately after each flare up of Arab violence within the Israeli controlled mandate area.
> 
> Also, I think its important to note that the ONLY criteria for repatriation would be prisoner of war status, which is a determination made based on actions not ethnicity.
> 
> Unless you want to consider country of origin an ethnic instead of national designation. Which I'm not sure is accurate. I can be say, of Italian descent but a citizen of the US. In which case my country of origin is the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country of origin is whatever country currently controls the land they occupy.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

I see nothing which supports your view within the conventions.


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. It would be the somewhat less than timely application of international law. IMHO this should have been done immediately after each flare up of Arab violence within the Israeli controlled mandate area.
> 
> Also, I think its important to note that the ONLY criteria for repatriation would be prisoner of war status, which is a determination made based on actions not ethnicity.
> 
> Unless you want to consider country of origin an ethnic instead of national designation. Which I'm not sure is accurate. I can be say, of Italian descent but a citizen of the US. In which case my country of origin is the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country of origin is whatever country currently controls the land they occupy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that position is defensible within international law. Simply because a combatant has been captured and detained within a given area does not make that given area their country of origin.
Click to expand...


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



> A prisoner of wars country of origin isn't even something that the country of the detaining state is required to determine. I'm pretty sure thats up to the Neutral third party.
> 
> The detaining state is only responsible for certain aspects of the care and wellbeing of the detainee and for proper judicial treatment.
> 
> Beyond that I dont' think they are responsible for much other than repatriation of prisoners of war within roughly one year after the cessation of hostilities. I'm pretty sure repatriation can include being turned over to a neutral third party. IE the IRC.
> 
> I see nothing which supports your view within the conventions.



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


----------



## Boston1

Whatever logic either of us is using is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the applicable legal statutes and instruments 

The UN definition of a palestinian didn't include any requirement that they have resided for centuries; it only required that they have been present in the area for a two year period of time.

Regardless, Israel isn't required to maintain a enemy combatant on sovereign territory under the Geneva conventions. On the contrary Israel is obligated to either repatriate prisoners of war or turn them over to a neutral third party, with the IRC being the declared default party.

So regardless of what you might consider their country of origin to be, Israel is within its rights to detain and send them packing.

From what I can see within the conventions, Israel has every right to turn them over to the IRC at the border of its sovereign territory or territory that it controls sovereign or not; and is under no obligation to readmit foreign prisoners of war back into the country.

If you can point out articles within the conventions that support your view that'd be awesome but from what I can see, Israel could begin the repatriation process whenever it deems fit.


----------



## RoccoR

Boston1, Coyote, et al,

Sorry for getting back so late.  I just now saw this.

The return of POWs is fairly straight forward.  



Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This is an Article 134 issue of 1949 Geneva Convention IV.

Absent other negotiated terms within the Cease-Fire Arrangements, Armistice or Treaty, the Geneva Convention says:

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

The High Contracting Parties shall endeavor, 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.​

Outside this limited view, the terms and frame of reference are:

•  Voluntary repatriation refers to two generalized aspects: 

∆  The refugee goes home voluntarily.  
∆  Restoration of citizenship for the homeland.​•  Return is the generalized term for repatriations that have a special set of problems or considerations to be addressed.  Right away, when you hear the phrase "Right of Return,"  You know there is a problem.

•  Refoulement is a kind of "forced repatriation" or "territorial expulsion" that might place the returnee in a life threatening situation or where the returnee is re-incarcerated.   Refoulement is absent any option for
consideration in sanctuary and security.

In many contemporary cases, the Repatriation has become violent.  And very few members of the international community want to avoid establishing binding articles to enforcement.  Repatriation has become the preferred solution because it is the most economic solution for member nations involved.  It lifts the burden of reintegration and restoration of the refugee into society.  In typical repatriation moves, a polarized population develops around refugee concentrations that bundle together for safety and security. 

BUT, to my knowledge, there is no absolute "right of return."

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## Boston1

What about a POW being turned over to the IRC ?

See third Geneva convention 

Quote 

Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention.
When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.
Any neutral Power or any organization invited by the Power concerned or offering itself for these purposes, shall be required to act with a sense of responsibility towards the Party to the conflict on which persons protected by the present Convention depend, and shall be required to furnish sufficient assurances that it is in a position to undertake the appropriate functions and to discharge them impartially.
No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special agreements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in its freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial part, of the territory of the said Power is occupied.
Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the present Article.


----------



## Coyote

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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


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



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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote 

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


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote, Boston1,  et al,

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



Coyote said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

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

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

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1

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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> Coyote, Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO).  But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible.  When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation."  thousands were sent to their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian.  There are plenty of video's  showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms.  The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.
> 
> Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps.  This created artificial refugee problems.  When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Boston1

No

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

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

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

Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.

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


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> No
> 
> I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.
> 
> Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.
> 
> Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.
> 
> Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.
> 
> The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status




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


----------



## Indeependent

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.
> 
> Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.
> 
> Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.
> 
> Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.
> 
> The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is of course assuming Israel decides to annex the entire territory for itself?  So how are you going to sort out 4.4 million people?  And, since Jordan won't take them - then what?  They aren't Jordanian citizens.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.
> 
> Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.
> 
> Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.
> 
> Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.
> 
> The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is of course assuming Israel decides to annex the entire territory for itself?  So how are you going to sort out 4.4 million people?  And, since Jordan won't take them - then what?  They aren't Jordanian citizens.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.
> 
> Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.
> 
> Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.
> 
> Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.
> 
> The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is of course assuming Israel decides to annex the entire territory for itself?  So how are you going to sort out 4.4 million people?  And, since Jordan won't take them - then what?  They aren't Jordanian citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, it has nothing to do with annexation. Thats a whole other issue. This issue is regarding POWs.
> 
> And your right, how are we going to sort out three or four generations of mostly combatants from whatever legitimate refugees might exist. The UN has made it clear its a patrilineal system. So if its predominantly men who are combatants then identifying the fathers of the refugees and determining their status becomes key.
> 
> But thats a whole other issue and not really on topic.
> 
> What happens if you ceed land to the palestinians is you must then consider who among the palestinians are legitimate refugees. Thats what I'm really talking about
> 
> That and who ceed s land, IMHO it shouldn't be the Israeli's who are responsible for providing land to any fourth state within the mandate area. It should be the Arabs
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


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



Coyote, 

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

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


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  et al,

I'm confused.



Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote, Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO).  But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible.  When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation."  thousands were sent to their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian.  There are plenty of video's  showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms.  The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.
> 
> Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps.  This created artificial refugee problems.  When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

So where did you get that from?

I don't think I said that at all.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote, Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO).  But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible.  When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation."  thousands were sent to their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian.  There are plenty of video's  showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms.  The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.
> 
> Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps.  This created artificial refugee problems.  When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,
> 
> Would you say that expulsion of racial, ethnic, cultural or political groups is morally wrong?
Click to expand...


Absolutely.



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



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



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



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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> I would make a determination of status under the Geneva conventions and act on that determination.
> 
> Any transferes to a neutral third country would by those conventions not include civilians, but only prisoners of war.
> 
> Combatants, those who assist combatants or those who are suspected of assisting or engaging in acts hostile to the state are who would be effected.
> 
> Civilians fall under a whole other heading, protected persons.
> 
> The real rub comes when you take into account the status of descendants of combatants. People who never qualified for protected persons status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is of course assuming Israel decides to annex the entire territory for itself?  So how are you going to sort out 4.4 million people?  And, since Jordan won't take them - then what?  They aren't Jordanian citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, it has nothing to do with annexation. Thats a whole other issue. This issue is regarding POWs.
> 
> And your right, how are we going to sort out three or four generations of mostly combatants from whatever legitimate refugees might exist. The UN has made it clear its a patrilineal system. So if its predominantly men who are combatants then identifying the fathers of the refugees and determining their status becomes key.
> 
> But thats a whole other issue and not really on topic.
> 
> What happens if you ceed land to the palestinians is you must then consider who among the palestinians are legitimate refugees. Thats what I'm really talking about
> 
> That and who ceed s land, IMHO it shouldn't be the Israeli's who are responsible for providing land to any fourth state within the mandate area. It should be the Arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are  not all refugees or jk - a good many are simply people who have lived there for centuries.  Unless you are talking about those in refugee camps.
Click to expand...


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

Refugees
Civilians and
POWs

So I stand corrected

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

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


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


I love raccoons <---- drunken friend


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


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



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


----------



## Boston1

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

Anyway 

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

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


----------



## Boston1

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

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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote, Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO).  But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible.  When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation."  thousands were sent to their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian.  There are plenty of video's  showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms.  The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.
> 
> Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps.  This created artificial refugee problems.  When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...you're right.  It's what I'm getting from Boston.  Apologies
Click to expand...


No

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


----------



## Phoenall

Indeependent said:


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







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


----------



## Phoenall

Boston1 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that the Arab states would use the refugees as weapons really wasn't considered when any of the various legal instruments were written that govern this conflict. It goes against anything the west considered morally or ethically possible. Its the culture clash, we value life, they value death. When was the last time you ever heard about an Israeli suicide bomber ?
> 
> This is one of many reasons I believe its the more ethical thing to do, expel the Arab Muslim colonists so the native peoples can live in peace.
> 
> Give the two state solution a chance. Jordan and Israel.
> 
> There is ample support for the treatment of refugees who participate in hostile acts against the host nation within the Geneva conventions to justify expelling the vast majority of Arab Muslims from Israeli controlled areas.
> 
> Its kinda a no brainer actually as the provisions for the treatment of combatants is also so clearly laid out in the conventions.
> 
> But the idea of ceding one more inch of Israel to the Arab Muslim colonists is just irresponsible in the extreme.
> 
> Israel cannot afford to be complacent
Click to expand...







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


----------



## Phoenall

Boston1 said:


> As I reread all I can't help but notice how bad my spelling and grammar is. My most humble apologies, English isn't my first language and I find it most difficult.
> 
> I'm working on it, but yeah, my appologies to those grammar and spelling Nazi's who might be trying to follow along








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


----------



## Phoenall

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote, Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO).  But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible.  When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation."  thousands were sent to their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian.  There are plenty of video's  showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms.  The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.
> 
> Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps.  This created artificial refugee problems.  When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...you're right.  It's what I'm getting from Boston.  Apologies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Its what you are getting from yourself. What I said had nothing to do with civilians
Click to expand...






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


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
Click to expand...






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


----------



## dani67

Indeependent said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat, Roudy, et al,
> 
> Well --- I think our friend "aris2chat" is very much on track.
> 
> *Disengagement:* *Office of History, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*
> On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.​
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea.  Take half the West Bank and give the other half to Jordan, and let them sort it out.  I'm sure Jordan would be happy for the extra land, since they have about a million Syrian refugees they had to take in recently.  The Palestinians would be happy too since they would be ruled by Muslims as opposed to Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan tried to give palestinians citizenship, but that did not work out well and ended up killing some 20,000 or so PLO fighters after black September
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians would be happy --- and I'm not sure that the Jordanians would give it any serious consideration.  The Kingdom tried to help the Arab Palestinians once before and were given nothing but disrespect, violent insurrection, and trouble for their efforts.
> 
> Why would the Kingdom even consider trusting the people of the West Bank?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once their plan to destroy the Jewish state failed, the Jordanains occupied the West Bank, and according to Palestinian leaders, kept their people in "concentration camp conditions" for 20 years.  Which gave rise to Black September in which the Jordanians killed over 20,000 Palestinians.
> 
> So of course there is a lot of bad blood between them, however this conflict has always been about religious intolerance and Muslim Arab inability to accept a Jewish state of any sort in the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Accept a Jewish State?
> They can't even accept each other!
Click to expand...


*Divide and rule *

Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_For the short story by L. Sprague de Camp, see __Divide and Rule (short story)__. For the collection of novellas by L. Sprague de Camp, see __Divide and Rule (collection)__.
_
In politics and sociology, *divide and rule* (or *divide and conquer*) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
Click to expand...








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






PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


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

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

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

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

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

_ West_. – The Mediterranean Sea.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
Click to expand...








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


----------



## Phoenall

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
Click to expand...






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


----------



## Phoenall

dani67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat, Roudy, et al,
> 
> Well --- I think our friend "aris2chat" is very much on track.
> 
> *Disengagement:* *Office of History, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*
> On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.​
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great idea.  Take half the West Bank and give the other half to Jordan, and let them sort it out.  I'm sure Jordan would be happy for the extra land, since they have about a million Syrian refugees they had to take in recently.  The Palestinians would be happy too since they would be ruled by Muslims as opposed to Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan tried to give palestinians citizenship, but that did not work out well and ended up killing some 20,000 or so PLO fighters after black September
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians would be happy --- and I'm not sure that the Jordanians would give it any serious consideration.  The Kingdom tried to help the Arab Palestinians once before and were given nothing but disrespect, violent insurrection, and trouble for their efforts.
> 
> Why would the Kingdom even consider trusting the people of the West Bank?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once their plan to destroy the Jewish state failed, the Jordanains occupied the West Bank, and according to Palestinian leaders, kept their people in "concentration camp conditions" for 20 years.  Which gave rise to Black September in which the Jordanians killed over 20,000 Palestinians.
> 
> So of course there is a lot of bad blood between them, however this conflict has always been about religious intolerance and Muslim Arab inability to accept a Jewish state of any sort in the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Accept a Jewish State?
> They can't even accept each other!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Divide and rule *
> 
> Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _For the short story by L. Sprague de Camp, see __Divide and Rule (short story)__. For the collection of novellas by L. Sprague de Camp, see __Divide and Rule (collection)__.
> _
> In politics and sociology, *divide and rule* (or *divide and conquer*) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up
Click to expand...






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


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote, Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO).  But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible.  When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation."  thousands were sent to their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth can Palestinian civilians be considered POW's?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian.  There are plenty of video's  showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms.  The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.
> 
> Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps.  This created artificial refugee problems.  When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...you're right.  It's what I'm getting from Boston.  Apologies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Its what you are getting from yourself. What I said had nothing to do with civilians
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean you are for the expulsion of Jews from Jewish Palestine to make way for arab muslim extremists and terrorists. Read the mandate of Palestine to see who the land was given to in 1923, and what the qarab muslims got at the same time
Click to expand...


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

What are you for?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you can if they are Jews, and under INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 the land belongs to the Jews.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as the evidence shows the arab muslims were in the minority during the Ottoman rule of the area. Then after the defeat of 1916 the arab muslims flooded into Palestine in an attempt at forcing the LoN to change its mind. They came from the surrounding area hoping to steal the land the Jews had made fertile and get some sex slaves. This state of affairs has been going on ever since, and only the terminally stupid would believe that arab girls gave birth to triplets and quads every nine months from the age of 12 till they were 60 years old with no mortalities. This would mean that they had a worlds first and a population of super humans to achieve the population explosion they did. Even the civilised west cant come close to these figures and we have better health and medical care than the third world arabs in Palestine. Want to show how the population increased exponentially every time the arab muslims were defeated, and more Syrian and Egyptian family names entered the register as refugee's.
Click to expand...


Your "evidence" was debunked in another thread.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate and the LoN enacted an International law that granted the Jews the land that is now know as the west bank, gaza and Golan heights. The UN illegally partitioned this land into a possible arab muslim state, once they realised they amended the UN charter to once again grant the Jews the above land. The pro Palestinians/anti Jews always balk when these INTERNATIONAL LAWS are pointed out and deflect away from the reality because they know they have no answers.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## RoccoR

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

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



Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate and the LoN enacted an International law that granted the Jews the land that is now know as the west bank, gaza and Golan heights. The UN illegally partitioned this land into a possible arab muslim state, once they realised they amended the UN charter to once again grant the Jews the above land. The pro Palestinians/anti Jews always balk when these INTERNATIONAL LAWS are pointed out and deflect away from the reality because they know they have no answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What international "law"?  My understanding is there was no force of law there.  Maybe we should take this up in the Mandate thread?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

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

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

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

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

Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:​
The Allied Powers set-up the Mandate and had it approved by the Council.   The Mandatory exercises the authority on behalf of the "Council."

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

•  References:

Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Mandate Preamble.
Articles 28 of the Mandate
Chapter XII of the UN Charter
In November 1947, the UN General Assembly *(as the successor body to the Council)* voted on and approved the "partition plan" in the form of Resolution 181(II).   All in accordance with the agreed upon procedures involving the Allied Powers, and the Council as passed on to the Mandatory.  The UN General Assembly adoption of the 1947 Resolution fulfills the requirement within the Mandate (agreed upon by the parties) to "explicitly defined" by the body if it was not previously agreed to.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1

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

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

Its in the conventions

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

Quote

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


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC
> 
> Its in the conventions
> 
> Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
> Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
> Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
> Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.



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


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought.  Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?
> 
> But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC
> 
> Its in the conventions
> 
> Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
> Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
> Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
> Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. It would be the somewhat less than timely application of international law. IMHO this should have been done immediately after each flare up of Arab violence within the Israeli controlled mandate area.
> 
> Also, I think its important to note that the ONLY criteria for repatriation would be prisoner of war status, which is a determination made based on actions not ethnicity.
> 
> Unless you want to consider country of origin an ethnic instead of national designation. Which I'm not sure is accurate. I can be say, of Italian descent but a citizen of the US. In which case my country of origin is the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country of origin is whatever country currently controls the land they occupy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that position is defensible within international law. Simply because a combatant has been captured and detained within a given area does not make that given area their country of origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the logic I'm using for their country of origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A prisoner of wars country of origin isn't even something that the country of the detaining state is required to determine. I'm pretty sure thats up to the Neutral third party.
> 
> The detaining state is only responsible for certain aspects of the care and wellbeing of the detainee and for proper judicial treatment.
> 
> Beyond that I dont' think they are responsible for much other than repatriation of prisoners of war within roughly one year after the cessation of hostilities. I'm pretty sure repatriation can include being turned over to a neutral third party. IE the IRC.
> 
> I see nothing which supports your view within the conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a person has resided for centuries in an area that is where he originates - not some foreign country.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote, Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO).  But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible.  When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation."  thousands were sent to their deaths.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian.  There are plenty of video's  showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms.  The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.
> 
> Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps.  This created artificial refugee problems.  When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...you're right.  It's what I'm getting from Boston.  Apologies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Its what you are getting from yourself. What I said had nothing to do with civilians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## flacaltenn

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC
> 
> Its in the conventions
> 
> Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
> Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
> Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
> Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you can claim a nonexistent country as your country of origin, however I don't think it really matters as its not up to the individual POW to make this decision. The sovereign power is within its legal boundaries to simply turn a POW over to the default neutral third party.
> 
> One thing I don't see in the conventions is where Israel is responsible to provide a country to POWs so again a fourth Arab state within the mandated area is not only unnecessary but uncalled for
> 
> Although I'm still searching for the specific article that designated the IRC as the default third party. I stumbled on it once while I was looking for something else but damn if I can find it when I need it. Go figure.
> 
> Rocco brought up the issues of forced repatriation vs refoulment so I think you'd do better arguing that issue than claiming a nonexistent country and the country of origin.
> 
> I've been reading up on that one as well, most of this stuff I learned in middle east studies but it was a while ago and I'm way rusty.
> 
> There's also a clause about repatriation to a neutral nation that negates the forced repatriation argument. I'll dig that up when I have time but yeah.
> 
> The conventions clearly give Israel the rights as the sovereign power to detain and remove prisoners of war from the war zone and to a neutral third party
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Boston1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...you're right.  It's what I'm getting from Boston.  Apologies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Its what you are getting from yourself. What I said had nothing to do with civilians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't both take the stand that "they've lived there for ages" and ignore that the PREVIOUS owner and admin of that land was Jordan. Merely living on the land doesn't give you civil rights, legal process or citizenship of any nation.. That's a MUTUAL decision..
Click to expand...


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

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




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



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



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



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


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, in the context of this thread, bring Jordan to them.    Either way the concept is the same.  The reason for the conflict is the essential incompatibility of the two groups.  (Though I think it is closer to the truth that it is the inability of the Arab Muslims to accept Jewish national self-determination).  *The REASON there is still a conflict in this place is that the two groups never got separated like all the other groups did post-WWII (mostly by mass expulsion and population exchange).  They need to be separated.  *
> 
> Israel doesn't need the land in Areas A and B.  And Israel certainly doesn't want the population.
> 
> The big concern, of course, is security.  And the question there is whether or not Jordan will support Israel in keeping the region free from extremists.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought.  Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?
> 
> But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes they could rely on Jordan to provide the services and security that is necessary for incubating a Pali state. That's why I've said for ages that a 2 state solution involves Israel working with Jordan and Egypt and other volunteer Arab states. It is the most direct path to eventual autonomy for Palestine. *
> 
> Israel never got a chance to really negotiate with Jordan over the occupied West Bank, because by that time, the King was looking for ways to rid himself of the Palestinians. And as MOST of the posters have commented, the Palis burned that bridge when they ATTACKED their former host instead of negotiating for real autonomy with King Hussein...
> 
> It would be a monumentally BRAVE move for him to step forward now and take part in a reasonable solution..
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC
> 
> Its in the conventions
> 
> Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
> Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
> Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
> Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you can claim a nonexistent country as your country of origin, however I don't think it really matters as its not up to the individual POW to make this decision. The sovereign power is within its legal boundaries to simply turn a POW over to the default neutral third party.
> 
> One thing I don't see in the conventions is where Israel is responsible to provide a country to POWs so again a fourth Arab state within the mandated area is not only unnecessary but uncalled for
> 
> Although I'm still searching for the specific article that designated the IRC as the default third party. I stumbled on it once while I was looking for something else but damn if I can find it when I need it. Go figure.
> 
> Rocco brought up the issues of forced repatriation vs refoulment so I think you'd do better arguing that issue than claiming a nonexistent country and the country of origin.
> 
> I've been reading up on that one as well, most of this stuff I learned in middle east studies but it was a while ago and I'm way rusty.
> 
> There's also a clause about repatriation to a neutral nation that negates the forced repatriation argument. I'll dig that up when I have time but yeah.
> 
> The conventions clearly give Israel the rights as the sovereign power to detain and remove prisoners of war from the war zone and to a neutral third party
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...you're right.  It's what I'm getting from Boston.  Apologies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Its what you are getting from yourself. What I said had nothing to do with civilians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't both take the stand that "they've lived there for ages" and ignore that the PREVIOUS owner and admin of that land was Jordan. Merely living on the land doesn't give you civil rights, legal process or citizenship of any nation.. That's a MUTUAL decision..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At one time the administrator was Britain - would that have that make them British?  Would they have been expelled to their British "homeland" then?
> 
> It may be a mutual decision but in a modern world it is also a humanitarian decision and simply flicking your hand and talking about mass expulsions is not a mutual decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP plan is NOT to expel them to Jordan* -- but keep them on the same land they've living on for over 50 years. WITH the eventual transition of that land to an autonomous Palestine. Jordan's payout would be to become their gateway to growth and commerce.. Essentially bootstrapping BOTH the economies of Jordan AND "palestine".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree - I got side tracked. Just not sure how beneficial that would be to Jordan and whether Jordan could manage security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the help of Arab partners, Israel MIGHT consider moving some of their settlements as they did in Gaza. But WITHOUT partners to help the Palestinians build a govt/nation --- they would be IDIOTS to fall for that trip again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree - but, settlements are a part of the problem as to why there has been no resolution.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC
> 
> Its in the conventions
> 
> Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
> Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
> Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
> Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you can claim a nonexistent country as your country of origin, however I don't think it really matters as its not up to the individual POW to make this decision. The sovereign power is within its legal boundaries to simply turn a POW over to the default neutral third party.
> 
> One thing I don't see in the conventions is where Israel is responsible to provide a country to POWs so again a fourth Arab state within the mandated area is not only unnecessary but uncalled for
> 
> Although I'm still searching for the specific article that designated the IRC as the default third party. I stumbled on it once while I was looking for something else but damn if I can find it when I need it. Go figure.
> 
> Rocco brought up the issues of forced repatriation vs refoulment so I think you'd do better arguing that issue than claiming a nonexistent country and the country of origin.
> 
> I've been reading up on that one as well, most of this stuff I learned in middle east studies but it was a while ago and I'm way rusty.
> 
> There's also a clause about repatriation to a neutral nation that negates the forced repatriation argument. I'll dig that up when I have time but yeah.
> 
> The conventions clearly give Israel the rights as the sovereign power to detain and remove prisoners of war from the war zone and to a neutral third party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then their country of origin would have to be what ever the country which holds the territory they are from - Israel.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## RoccoR

Boston, et al,

That would be:

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



Boston1 said:


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


*(REFERENCE)*



ARTICLE 134 [ Link ] 

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

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC
> 
> Its in the conventions
> 
> Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
> Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
> Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
> Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you can claim a nonexistent country as your country of origin, however I don't think it really matters as its not up to the individual POW to make this decision. The sovereign power is within its legal boundaries to simply turn a POW over to the default neutral third party.
> 
> One thing I don't see in the conventions is where Israel is responsible to provide a country to POWs so again a fourth Arab state within the mandated area is not only unnecessary but uncalled for
> 
> Although I'm still searching for the specific article that designated the IRC as the default third party. I stumbled on it once while I was looking for something else but damn if I can find it when I need it. Go figure.
> 
> Rocco brought up the issues of forced repatriation vs refoulment so I think you'd do better arguing that issue than claiming a nonexistent country and the country of origin.
> 
> I've been reading up on that one as well, most of this stuff I learned in middle east studies but it was a while ago and I'm way rusty.
> 
> There's also a clause about repatriation to a neutral nation that negates the forced repatriation argument. I'll dig that up when I have time but yeah.
> 
> The conventions clearly give Israel the rights as the sovereign power to detain and remove prisoners of war from the war zone and to a neutral third party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then their country of origin would have to be what ever the country which holds the territory they are from - Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can show that as a legal determination within the Geneva conventions then great but I don't think its there.
> 
> Once again the concept of refoulment seems to have some precedence and the issue of a forced migration also comes to mind. But I have to wonder if you realize, I'm talking about POWs rather than civilians as defined within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> I think your concern is that under the conventions definitions, just how many of those now considered either civilians or refugees, could be redesignated combatants, given the wide brush of the convention articles.
> 
> Which is a reasonable concern, however I doubt every last Arab muslim in the combat zone would qualify.
> 
> There'd still some pali's under Israeli control but the number would certainly be significantly reduced and those remaining would have been thoroughly vetted for a lack of involvement, which seems like it would have the obvious effect of bringing peace to the area.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> Boston, et al,
> 
> That would be:
> 
> *REPATRIATION AND RETURN TO THE LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE*
> *ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]*
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rocco mentioned something about civilian repatriation being to a last place of residence, ( I'll try and find the exact quote ) which brings us back to the refoulment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]
> 
> The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour, upon the close of hostilities or occupation, to ensure the return of all internees to their last place of residence, or to facilitate their repatriation.
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


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


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  et al,

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



Coyote said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

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

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

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  et al,

That is the problem with NIAC conflicts.



Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston, et al,
> 
> That would be:
> 
> *REPATRIATION AND RETURN TO THE LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE*
> *ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]*
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rocco mentioned something about civilian repatriation being to a last place of residence, ( I'll try and find the exact quote ) which brings us back to the refoulment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]
> 
> The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour, upon the close of hostilities or occupation, to ensure the return of all internees to their last place of residence, or to facilitate their repatriation.
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how that can be applied to Palestinians who's last place of residence is in the country they are currently in - in fact, there only place of residence
Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

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

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

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC
> 
> Its in the conventions
> 
> Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
> Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
> Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
> Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you can claim a nonexistent country as your country of origin, however I don't think it really matters as its not up to the individual POW to make this decision. The sovereign power is within its legal boundaries to simply turn a POW over to the default neutral third party.
> 
> One thing I don't see in the conventions is where Israel is responsible to provide a country to POWs so again a fourth Arab state within the mandated area is not only unnecessary but uncalled for
> 
> Although I'm still searching for the specific article that designated the IRC as the default third party. I stumbled on it once while I was looking for something else but damn if I can find it when I need it. Go figure.
> 
> Rocco brought up the issues of forced repatriation vs refoulment so I think you'd do better arguing that issue than claiming a nonexistent country and the country of origin.
> 
> I've been reading up on that one as well, most of this stuff I learned in middle east studies but it was a while ago and I'm way rusty.
> 
> There's also a clause about repatriation to a neutral nation that negates the forced repatriation argument. I'll dig that up when I have time but yeah.
> 
> The conventions clearly give Israel the rights as the sovereign power to detain and remove prisoners of war from the war zone and to a neutral third party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then their country of origin would have to be what ever the country which holds the territory they are from - Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can show that as a legal determination within the Geneva conventions then great but I don't think its there.
> 
> Once again the concept of refoulment seems to have some precedence and the issue of a forced migration also comes to mind. But I have to wonder if you realize, I'm talking about POWs rather than civilians as defined within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> I think your concern is that under the conventions definitions, just how many of those now considered either civilians or refugees, could be redesignated combatants, given the wide brush of the convention articles.
> 
> Which is a reasonable concern, however I doubt every last Arab muslim in the combat zone would qualify.
> 
> There'd still some pali's under Israeli control but the number would certainly be significantly reduced and those remaining would have been thoroughly vetted for a lack of involvement, which seems like it would have the obvious effect of bringing peace to the area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it would be extremely difficult to seperate out combatents from legitimate resistance of an occupation.  If there are POW's (and I'm not sure I agree with that designation) it would seem to me that would only apply to those held in jails.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree - but, settlements are a part of the problem as to why there has been no resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The settlements problem a giant red herring.  "Settlements" are not any part of the problem.  "Settlements" are just places where Jewish people live.  Jewish people living in places is not a problem.  Unless you build a narrative MAKING it a problem.  (Which the Arab Muslims have).
> 
> Settlements are an excuse not to get things done.  Settlements are an excuse to demonize Israel.  Settlements are an excuse for blatant racism and anti-semitism.
Click to expand...


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

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



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



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



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



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

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

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


----------



## Boston1

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> That is the problem with NIAC conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston, et al,
> 
> That would be:
> 
> *REPATRIATION AND RETURN TO THE LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE*
> *ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]*
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rocco mentioned something about civilian repatriation being to a last place of residence, ( I'll try and find the exact quote ) which brings us back to the refoulment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]
> 
> The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour, upon the close of hostilities or occupation, to ensure the return of all internees to their last place of residence, or to facilitate their repatriation.
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how that can be applied to Palestinians who's last place of residence is in the country they are currently in - in fact, there only place of residence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> It is the dilemma I was trying to explain to P F Tinmore.
> 
> In reality, these types of issues are brought-up at the Armistice meeting, Cease-Fire Arrangements, or the Treaty negotiations.  The Geneva Convention Code is only used as the default.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## RoccoR

Boston1, et al,

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



Boston1 said:


> I dont' see anything in the conventions which gives any special consideration to something termed "legitimate resistance" a combatant is a combatant is a combatant. Which is very different from a protected person.
> 
> And POWs can be held in camps segregated in whatever manor the Sovereign powers judiciary deems fit. However he conventions do specify that female prisoners of war be held separate from male prisoners of war.
> 
> From what I can see any threat to the state constitutes a forfeiture of protected persons status


*(COMMENT)*

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


*ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] *

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

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

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

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

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> Boston1, et al,
> 
> There is no such thing as a "legitimate resistance."  It is the consensus of the International Community that international disputes shall be settled by peaceful means; Chapter I, Article 2(3).
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' see anything in the conventions which gives any special consideration to something termed "legitimate resistance" a combatant is a combatant is a combatant. Which is very different from a protected person.
> 
> And POWs can be held in camps segregated in whatever manor the Sovereign powers judiciary deems fit. However he conventions do specify that female prisoners of war be held separate from male prisoners of war.
> 
> From what I can see any threat to the state constitutes a forfeiture of protected persons status
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A resistance movement is generally thought of as a segment of the civilian community that has banded together to conduct coordinated hostile operations against the Occupation Command in a covert and/or clandestine manner.   They are meant to be indistinguishable from the normal, non-Hostile protected persons.
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] *
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.​
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as a legitimate resistance movement.  That would be the opposing armed force.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Boston1

RoccoR said:


> Boston1, et al,
> 
> There is no such thing as a "legitimate resistance."  It is the consensus of the International Community that international disputes shall be settled by peaceful means; Chapter I, Article 2(3).
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' see anything in the conventions which gives any special consideration to something termed "legitimate resistance" a combatant is a combatant is a combatant. Which is very different from a protected person.
> 
> And POWs can be held in camps segregated in whatever manor the Sovereign powers judiciary deems fit. However he conventions do specify that female prisoners of war be held separate from male prisoners of war.
> 
> From what I can see any threat to the state constitutes a forfeiture of protected persons status
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A resistance movement is generally thought of as a segment of the civilian community that has banded together to conduct coordinated hostile operations against the Occupation Command in a covert and/or clandestine manner.   They are meant to be indistinguishable from the normal, non-Hostile protected persons.
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] *
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.​
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as a legitimate resistance movement.  That would be the opposing armed force.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Thats what I thought. 

So protestors with signs out in front of a gov building shouting slogans is about the extent of a legal protest. 

The pali's on the other hand are stabbing pregnant woman in the streets. Seems to be that places them squarely in the category of illegal combatants. Unless that is they strap on a uniform prior to every attack.


----------



## Boston1

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1, et al,
> 
> There is no such thing as a "legitimate resistance."  It is the consensus of the International Community that international disputes shall be settled by peaceful means; Chapter I, Article 2(3).
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' see anything in the conventions which gives any special consideration to something termed "legitimate resistance" a combatant is a combatant is a combatant. Which is very different from a protected person.
> 
> The cite is from
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> 
> Which pertains to civilians. In this case we have civilians, refugees and combatants.
> 
> And POWs can be held in camps segregated in whatever manor the Sovereign powers judiciary deems fit. However he conventions do specify that female prisoners of war be held separate from male prisoners of war.
> 
> From what I can see any threat to the state constitutes a forfeiture of protected persons status
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A resistance movement is generally thought of as a segment of the civilian community that has banded together to conduct coordinated hostile operations against the Occupation Command in a covert and/or clandestine manner.   They are meant to be indistinguishable from the normal, non-Hostile protected persons.
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] *
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.​
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as a legitimate resistance movement.  That would be the opposing armed force.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok...yet, when the Palestinians have attempted "peaceful" resolution by going directly to the UN, Israel has punished them with economic sanctions.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. The act of war is ongoing, the Arabs declared war back in 1948 and obviously the state of war is ongoing. I dont think an attempt at negotiations regardless of its validity under the Oslo accords constitutes an end to hostilities.

Under Rocco's definition an attack against the armed forces or civilians seems to constitute an act which removes protected persons status.

Although I really should read that thing again as I am kinda tight on time


----------



## RoccoR

"Coyote,  et al,

What you see as the Arab Palestinian going before the UN for a peaceful resolution is not what others see.



Coyote said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

What I see is a series of attempts to set the conditions such that Israel will be destroyed and the UN will be responsible yet again for the creation of another failed state.  The Palestinians don't want the "Right-of-Return."  That is nothing more then the opportunity to overrun Israel such that it can no longer defend itself and hold on to the Jewish Nation Home and the ability to secure and protect is sovereignty, is citizens, and its culture from the harm the Arab League will commit given the opportunity.

Again, I ask you:  What local nations, surrounding Israel, has the Higher Level  of Human Development.   And before you say, Israel is holding the West Bank and Gaza Strip down, look at where the other nations are, for which Israel does not have any influence on.  Israel is ranked 18th, the US is ranked 8th.  You do not find another regional country until you reach #32 Qatar.  See the Table A1.1 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2015 Page 47 

Israel out ranks some of the wealthiest Middle East, Gulf Coast --- Oil rich countries in the World.  And not by some insignificant amount; but by a significant amount.  It doesn't out rank just a few, or some select group, but every member nation of the Arab League.  And most of what I hear is that Israel is holding the West Bank and Gaza Strip down.  Well that is far from the truth.  The difference is the focus these other countries have.  The reason that the State of Palestine is ranked 113th and falling, is because all its people focus on is creating turmoil and fermenting trouble.  

Why anyone that looks at the logic of these wealthy Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members of the oil-exporting countries and say, they have it right and Israel has it wrong, it beyond me.  Anyone who would rather see the Arab Palestinians overrun Israeli is actually not interested in the Human Development of the people, or justice, or fairness.  They are interest in conflict and have been since the 1920 Riots.  And would rather have another failed state.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> "Coyote,  et al,
> 
> What you see as the Arab Palestinian going before the UN for a peaceful resolution is not what others see.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok...yet, when the Palestinians have attempted "peaceful" resolution by going directly to the UN, Israel has punished them with economic sanctions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What I see is a series of attempts to set the conditions such that Israel will be destroyed and the UN will be responsible yet again for the creation of another failed state.  The Palestinians don't want the "Right-of-Return."  That is nothing more then the opportunity to overrun Israel such that it can no longer defend itself and hold on to the Jewish Nation Home and the ability to secure and protect is sovereignty, is citizens, and its culture from the harm the Arab League will commit given the opportunity.
Click to expand...


Netanyahu has made clear that there will be no Palestinian state.  I think that that has been apparent to the Palestinians for some time - Israel has insisted on conditions that have to be met while continuing it's settlement activities for example.  So I'm just wondering - given that - why should they not go to the UN?  Exactly what are their options when dealing with a state that has no intention of delivering?



> Again, I ask you:  What local nations, surrounding Israel, has the Higher Level  of Human Development.   And before you say, Israel is holding the West Bank and Gaza Strip down, look at where the other nations are, for which Israel does not have any influence on.  Israel is ranked 18th, the US is ranked 8th.  You do not find another regional country until you reach #32 Qatar.  See the Table A1.1 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2015 Page 47



I have no argument there - Israel is far ahead of it's neighbors.



> Israel out ranks some of the wealthiest Middle East, Gulf Coast --- Oil rich countries in the World.  And not by some insignificant amount; but by a significant amount.  It doesn't out rank just a few, or some select group, but every member nation of the Arab League.  And most of what I hear is that Israel is holding the West Bank and Gaza Strip down.  Well that is far from the truth.  The difference is the focus these other countries have.  *The reason that the State of Palestine is ranked 113th and falling, is because all its people focus on is creating turmoil and fermenting trouble.  *
> 
> Why anyone that looks at the logic of these wealthy Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members of the oil-exporting countries and say, they have it right and Israel has it wrong, it beyond me.  Anyone who would rather see the Arab Palestinians overrun Israeli is actually not interested in the Human Development of the people, or justice, or fairness.  They are interest in conflict and have been since the 1920 Riots.  And would rather have another failed state.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



I disagree on that part.  I do agree that their leadership is to blame in part but not in entirety - Israel, with it's frequent sanctions, control over their economy, utilities, import/export etc makes it impossible to create an enduring economy.  Their leadership makes it even worse but Israel is not blameless here.


----------



## Boston1

The palestinians aren't fooling anyone with this "give us another state" argument.

Whats wrong with Jordan and the 80% or so of the mandated area they already have ?

I can't imagine this is anything but another thinly veiled attempt to destabilize Israel.

I think the only solution begins with applying the Geneva conventions and removing all hostile Arab forces from any area of Israeli influence.

At which point I think Israel would be obligated to lighten restrictions and test the waters. It benefits no one to have a large group dependent on welfare holding down the economies of either group.

Oh and I'd kick the UNWRA out right off the bat and take them to the ICC for violations of the principals of neutrality.


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> The palestinians aren't fooling anyone with this "give us another state" argument.
> 
> Whats wrong with Jordan and the 80% or so of the mandated area they already have ?
> 
> *I can't imagine this is anything but another thinly veiled attempt to destabilize Israel.*
> 
> I think the only solution begins with applying the Geneva conventions and removing all hostile Arab forces from any area of Israeli influence.
> 
> At which point I think Israel would be obligated to lighten restrictions and test the waters. It benefits no one to have a large group dependent on welfare holding down the economies of either group.
> 
> Oh and I'd kick the UNWRA out right off the bat and take them to the ICC for violations of the principals of neutrality.



I don't think so.  At the bottom of the whole mess is a people who would like self-determination and a state.  Mixed in you have the garbage of corruption, extremists, ideologues, and those who simply want power (Hamas).  You have Palestinians - Gazans - many, so desperate they are taking horrific and dangerous and expensive sea journeys to get out.  These are ordinary people, who want to work, raise their families, educate their children but see no future left in Gaza.  They blame it on a combination of Israel's actions and their own leadership.


----------



## Coyote

How about removing hostile Israeli forces from the Occupied Territories?


----------



## Boston1

I think you are missing the whole nature of war with that last.

But I'd agree there are plenty of innocents who just want to live their lives and I'd suggest my plan represents the speediest path to peace.

Step one
Throw the UNWRA out and replace them with the red cross with the agreement that no employees or members of the IRC be nationals, members or a party in any way to the a belligerent in the conflict. Which would immediately aid in ensuring a fare more judicious distribution of aid.

Step two
Arrest and repatriate to a neutral third state all enemy combatants, those who aid combatants and those suspected of aiding or being combatants.

Step three
Ease restrictions gradually in step with a lack of terrorist activities.

Step four
Not another inch of Israeli controlled land should be relinquished. A recognition of Israeli sovereignty and a return of select individuals to areas available for return.

Step five
Annexation of all areas within Israeli influence into the state of Israel.

Step one through four would be unilateral except for parts of step four which would depend on an international acceptance of a token number of returns with the agreement that the world body will accept Israel's annexation of all Israeli controlled territory. And no I'm not even remotely suggesting a large scale return. maybe only those original refugees and only those who can be proven to have never engaged in actions against the state.

My two cents, not that it will ever happen


----------



## Coyote

Boston1 said:


> I think you are missing the whole nature of war with that last.
> 
> But I'd agree there are plenty of innocents who just want to live their lives and I'd suggest my plan represents the speediest path to peace.
> 
> Step one
> Throw the UNWRA out and replace them with the red cross with the agreement that no employees or members of the IRC be nationals, members or a party in any way to the a belligerent in the conflict. Which would immediately aid in ensuring a fare more judicious distribution of aid.
> 
> Step two
> Arrest and repatriate to a neutral third state all enemy combatants, those who aid combatants and those suspected of aiding or being combatants.
> 
> Step three
> Ease restrictions gradually in step with a lack of terrorist activities.
> 
> Step four
> Not another inch of Israeli controlled land should be relinquished. A recognition of Israeli sovereignty and a return of select individuals to areas available for return.
> 
> Step five
> Annexation of all areas within Israeli influence into the state of Israel.
> 
> Step one through four would be unilateral except for parts of step four which would depend on an international acceptance of a token number of returns with the agreement that the world body will accept Israel's annexation of all Israeli controlled territory. And no I'm not even remotely suggesting a large scale return. maybe only those original refugees and only those who can be proven to have never engaged in actions against the state.
> 
> My two cents, not that it will ever happen




I think you know I would not agree


----------



## Boston1

I can't imagine why, my plan could be enacted starting right now with the arrest and detainment of POWs. If you want peace, arrest the terrorists and place them under the auspices of the Geneva conventions. 

I keep hearing how all these innocent palestinians are being controlled by armed terrorists, well this is your chance. 

Arrest them and send them packing. 

If you are right and the majority of pali's can act in a civilized manor once their more violent elements have been removed then whats the problem ?


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> [  Exactly what are their options when dealing with a state that has no intention of delivering?



What Israel wants, what Israel has always wanted, what Israel has consistently agreed to over and over and over again is an end-of-conflict agreement with TWO States each with self-determination, living peacefully side by side.  Israel has been, has always been, continues to agree to peace.    

The PROBLEM is with the "peace" part.  The Arab Muslim Palestinians are having trouble with that part.  THAT is the cause of the conflict.  Period.  



Coyote said:


> How about removing hostile Israeli forces from the Occupied Territories?



We tried that with Gaza.  The "occupation" is not the problem.  It it was the problem, it would have been solved in Gaza and Gaza would be a thriving nation serving margheritas to rich tourists on their lovely beaches.  The problem is getting the hostile Arab Muslim Palestinians to accept "filthy Jewish (oops, sorry, Israeli) feet" on "their" land.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought.  Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?
> 
> But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes they could rely on Jordan to provide the services and security that is necessary for incubating a Pali state. That's why I've said for ages that a 2 state solution involves Israel working with Jordan and Egypt and other volunteer Arab states. It is the most direct path to eventual autonomy for Palestine. *
> 
> Israel never got a chance to really negotiate with Jordan over the occupied West Bank, because by that time, the King was looking for ways to rid himself of the Palestinians. And as MOST of the posters have commented, the Palis burned that bridge when they ATTACKED their former host instead of negotiating for real autonomy with King Hussein...
> 
> It would be a monumentally BRAVE move for him to step forward now and take part in a reasonable solution..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really interesting thought - I wasn't thinking along those lines but rather that Palestinians would become part of Jordan.  That adds a whole new dimension to this and makes it seem like a better alternative than I thought.  I wonder how possible it is?
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought.  Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?
> 
> But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes they could rely on Jordan to provide the services and security that is necessary for incubating a Pali state. That's why I've said for ages that a 2 state solution involves Israel working with Jordan and Egypt and other volunteer Arab states. It is the most direct path to eventual autonomy for Palestine. *
> 
> Israel never got a chance to really negotiate with Jordan over the occupied West Bank, because by that time, the King was looking for ways to rid himself of the Palestinians. And as MOST of the posters have commented, the Palis burned that bridge when they ATTACKED their former host instead of negotiating for real autonomy with King Hussein...
> 
> It would be a monumentally BRAVE move for him to step forward now and take part in a reasonable solution..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really interesting thought - I wasn't thinking along those lines but rather that Palestinians would become part of Jordan.  That adds a whole new dimension to this and makes it seem like a better alternative than I thought.  I wonder how possible it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is the only way to get a nation state for Palestine. These folks are in the same position they were during the British Mandate. It was noted then that the "palestinians" were not even CLOSE to  being capable of self-rule. And some kind of "protectorate" would be required to transition them to statehood. Not a thing has changed. Except that the Palis blew the opportunity while Jordan was hosting them, and have blown away every attempt at electing representation leading to statehood.
> 
> The world just doesn't recognize unorganized indigenous populations for statehood.
> 
> Israel's error is letting this go on WAY too long. 50 year occupations are immoral and destructive. Israel's expectation always was that the Palis would get their act together and select responsible leadership. And barring that -- Israel doesn't want to be their MENTOR.. So --- some other nation(s) need to step up and volunteer. Preferably a neighbor or two. It's just obvious..
> 
> In parent language -- they need a strong talking to about insisting on getting Haifa back.. Or returning to Haifa as non-Israeli citizens. They cannot waste another 50 years. NOBODY has that much patience.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## flacaltenn

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> That is the problem with NIAC conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston, et al,
> 
> That would be:
> 
> *REPATRIATION AND RETURN TO THE LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE*
> *ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]*
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rocco mentioned something about civilian repatriation being to a last place of residence, ( I'll try and find the exact quote ) which brings us back to the refoulment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 134 [ Link ]
> 
> The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour, upon the close of hostilities or occupation, to ensure the return of all internees to their last place of residence, or to facilitate their repatriation.
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how that can be applied to Palestinians who's last place of residence is in the country they are currently in - in fact, there only place of residence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> It is the dilemma I was trying to explain to P F Tinmore.
> 
> In reality, these types of issues are brought-up at the Armistice meeting, Cease-Fire Arrangements, or the Treaty negotiations.  The Geneva Convention Code is only used as the default.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You can't offer residence and/or citizenship to individuals conquered in battle who refuse to sign an armistice. 

Heck --- most  Palis wouldn't even sign a recognition  of Israel statehood!! Never mind their occupation that came about because their side lost a war and the PREVIOUS landlord no longer wanted the conquered territory back..


----------



## Boston1

The language being used in these last few posts is a frightening example the revisionist narrative infiltrating historic accuracy.

There is no state of palestine to be occupied. The pali's are not an indigenous people.
Self defense is not immoral
Jordan is the Arab state, Gaza will soon enough be another Arab state and no number of Arab states in the original mandated area is going to resolve the real problem

Racism and bigotry. The Arab Muslims simply will not let go of their hatred long enough to realize they are the only ones paying for all the hatred. Israel is a vibrant and robust country with a healthy economy. The only people suffering from the hatred and bigotry of the Arabs, is the Arabs.

Solution, Detain and declare palestinian combatants POWs and remove/repatriate them to a neutral third country or party.

Throw the bums out and let the rest live their lives under gradually reducing restrictions.


----------



## RoccoR

Boston1,  et al,

I think this is a very dangerous sequence.



Boston1 said:


> Step one
> Throw the UNWRA out and replace them with the red cross with the agreement that no employees or members of the IRC be nationals, members or a party in any way to the a belligerent in the conflict. Which would immediately aid in ensuring a fare more judicious distribution of aid.


*(COMMENT)*

The UNRWA is a source of income for many Palestinians.  And it is one of the most reliable employer payers.  

To cut-off this important (non-Israeli) source of revenue would have a grave impact on the economy; and a strain on the population that would have to be elevated immediately.

If the ICRC is brought in, they will want a reimbursement; probably a cost+fixed-fee arrangement.  This is counterproductive.



Boston1 said:


> Step two
> Arrest and repatriate to a neutral third state all enemy combatants, those who aid combatants and those suspected of aiding or being combatants.


*(COMMENT)*

This is a very expensive proposition.  Third-country receiverships for the placement of refugees, don't do this for free.  These third country receivers will want also want some sort of special development aid to supply jobs and employment services for the refugees.



Boston1 said:


> Step three
> Ease restrictions gradually in step with a lack of terrorist activities.


*(COMMENT)*

This can start anytime.  Israel wants to reduce the cost of security elements in the West Bank.  There are none in Gaza.

The problem has always been the trustworthiness of the Arab-Palestinian.  They demonstrated in the Gaza Strip Disengagement that they would not even cooperate in the cessation of hostilities during the withdrawal.  There is not reasonable expectation that as long as Jihadist, Islamic Radicals, and Fedayeen were still free, that the Palestinian Government has any influence or ability over their activity.



Boston1 said:


> Step four
> Not another inch of Israeli controlled land should be relinquished. A recognition of Israeli sovereignty and a return of select individuals to areas available for return.


*(COMMENT)*

This is a totally incomprehensible concept to the Arab Palestinian.  They would torturously drag out, for years, the negotiations on the slightest of details; and quibble over the fine points.  And then, like a cat done playing with a mouse, just up and leave with absolutely no progress.  

This is based on their past history.  



Boston1 said:


> Step five
> Annexation of all areas within Israeli influence into the state of Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

Absolutely dangerous.  You simply cannot move the current Arab Palestinian population anywhere.  They will still be there.  And upon Annexation, they will automatically become Israeli citizens.  It probably would not take more than two decades for the Arabs to assume power, change the laws, and turn the Jewish Homeland into another failed Arab State.  And during all that time, the Israelis will hemorrhage revenue on dedicated social and welfare programs for the new citizens that are now free to roam the entire Jewish National Home.  This would fiscally exsanguinate Israel. 



Boston1 said:


> Step one through four would be unilateral except for parts of step four which would depend on an international acceptance of a token number of returns with the agreement that the world body will accept Israel's annexation of all Israeli controlled territory. And no I'm not even remotely suggesting a large scale return. maybe only those original refugees and only those who can be proven to have never engaged in actions against the state.
> 
> My two cents, not that it will ever happen


*(COMMENT)*

This would play right into their hands.

If you want to see if the Arab Palestinians are self-destructive, then start a Utility Program, that benefits everyone.

When thinking about these types of concepts, you have to imagine a project that will hire both Israeli and Palestinian.  You have to have an end product that benefits both populations (Israeli and Arab) on a scale that is dramatic --- maybe even epic; a greater effort than the Hoover Dam.

Sink a "dedicated gas well set" in the Levant Basin.
Attach the appropriate refinement process.
Build a set of gas-powered Electric Generator system. (Keep Building until you reach 500 giga-watt-hours per year.)
Build a joint Palestinian-Israeli Desalinization Complex on the scale never seen before (6 Million Gallons per day).
Build a combination pipeline and aqueduct system from the coast to Hebron and then NE to Jericho.
Connect the gas well set to shore.
This would put everyone to work.  It would be the larges project of its kind.  And it would benefit the economy and the two populations directly by elevating and shortage of water electric power and water for any type of development.

Just My Thought,
R


----------



## Boston1

Its a ridiculous idea, rhetorically applied to the claims that Israel is somehow in violation of international law. International law is ludicrously inadequate to deal with this issue.

My point is, and I'm not sure if you intended it or just didn't feel like getting into particulars. Is that I can just as easily apply international law and legally force the deportation of what would likely amount to upwards of a million or so pali combatants from Israel. As the same law be applied to forcing Israel to accept enemy combatants as citizens as the pro terrorist faction is demanding.

If the pro terrorist faction wants to pretend international law is on their side its not so hard to show that Israel would be within its rights under international law to simply expel all pali combatants exactly as specified in the Geneva conventions.

The whole Israel is somehow breaking international law argument is just ridiculous. Nearly so as creating another Arab state within the postage stamp size area we call Israel.

I would however fully support the immediate removal of the UNWRA from any activities on Israeli soil and replace them with the ICRC using the $1.3 billion UNWRA budget being presently wasted on indoctrinating new terrorists, storing arms, transporting combatants and weapons in ambulances and providing work, shelter, food and medical aid to terrorists.

I would also engage immediately in segregating combatants from refugees or civilians, and place them in two large camps. One for woman and one for men exactly as specified in the Geneva conventions.

In a nut shell if the pali's really want a war, they should get one.

You are absolutely right that the Israeli's have let this go on WAY to long.

War is not pretty, the objective is not to die in equal numbers. So get it over with ASAP and quit wasting time with it. That old adage about it taking two to fight, is all wrong. It only takes one incessant Arab Muslim pali who refused to play nice.


----------



## aris2chat

RoccoR said:


> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> I think this is a very dangerous sequence.
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Step one
> Throw the UNWRA out and replace them with the red cross with the agreement that no employees or members of the IRC be nationals, members or a party in any way to the a belligerent in the conflict. Which would immediately aid in ensuring a fare more judicious distribution of aid.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UNRWA is a source of income for many Palestinians.  And it is one of the most reliable employer payers.
> 
> To cut-off this important (non-Israeli) source of revenue would have a grave impact on the economy; and a strain on the population that would have to be elevated immediately.
> 
> If the ICRC is brought in, they will want a reimbursement; probably a cost+fixed-fee arrangement.  This is counterproductive.
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Step two
> Arrest and repatriate to a neutral third state all enemy combatants, those who aid combatants and those suspected of aiding or being combatants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a very expensive proposition.  Third-country receiverships for the placement of refugees, don't do this for free.  These third country receivers will want also want some sort of special development aid to supply jobs and employment services for the refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Step three
> Ease restrictions gradually in step with a lack of terrorist activities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This can start anytime.  Israel wants to reduce the cost of security elements in the West Bank.  There are none in Gaza.
> 
> The problem has always been the trustworthiness of the Arab-Palestinian.  They demonstrated in the Gaza Strip Disengagement that they would not even cooperate in the cessation of hostilities during the withdrawal.  There is not reasonable expectation that as long as Jihadist, Islamic Radicals, and Fedayeen were still free, that the Palestinian Government has any influence or ability over their activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Step four
> Not another inch of Israeli controlled land should be relinquished. A recognition of Israeli sovereignty and a return of select individuals to areas available for return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a totally incomprehensible concept to the Arab Palestinian.  They would torturously drag out, for years, the negotiations on the slightest of details; and quibble over the fine points.  And then, like a cat done playing with a mouse, just up and leave with absolutely no progress.
> 
> This is based on their past history.
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Step five
> Annexation of all areas within Israeli influence into the state of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Absolutely dangerous.  You simply cannot move the current Arab Palestinian population anywhere.  They will still be there.  And upon Annexation, they will automatically become Israeli citizens.  It probably would not take more than two decades for the Arabs to assume power, change the laws, and turn the Jewish Homeland into another failed Arab State.  And during all that time, the Israelis will hemorrhage revenue on dedicated social and welfare programs for the new citizens that are now free to roam the entire Jewish National Home.  This would fiscally exsanguinate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Step one through four would be unilateral except for parts of step four which would depend on an international acceptance of a token number of returns with the agreement that the world body will accept Israel's annexation of all Israeli controlled territory. And no I'm not even remotely suggesting a large scale return. maybe only those original refugees and only those who can be proven to have never engaged in actions against the state.
> 
> My two cents, not that it will ever happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This would play right into their hands.
> 
> If you want to see if the Arab Palestinians are self-destructive, then start a Utility Program, that benefits everyone.
> 
> When thinking about these types of concepts, you have to imagine a project that will hire both Israeli and Palestinian.  You have to have an end product that benefits both populations (Israeli and Arab) on a scale that is dramatic --- maybe even epic; a greater effort than the Hoover Dam.
> 
> Sink a "dedicated gas well set" in the Levant Basin.
> Attach the appropriate refinement process.
> Build a set of gas-powered Electric Generator system. (Keep Building until you reach 500 giga-watt-hours per year.)
> Build a joint Palestinian-Israeli Desalinization Complex on the scale never seen before (6 Million Gallons per day).
> Build a combination pipeline and aqueduct system from the coast to Hebron and then NE to Jericho.
> Connect the gas well set to shore.
> This would put everyone to work.  It would be the larges project of its kind.  And it would benefit the economy and the two populations directly by elevating and shortage of water electric power and water for any type of development.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> R
Click to expand...



There are protests because UN has cut payments and funds to camps.  They just don't have the money anymore.  Can't give what they don't have

68 years, time to get off the dole


----------



## Boston1

Rather than reward the terrorists with more land the logical solution is to first remove their funding. The UN. 

Next logical step would be to begin the forced segregation and deportation of terrorists/combatants from legitimate refugees and civilians.


----------



## flacaltenn

Boston1 said:


> The language being used in these last few posts is a frightening example the revisionist narrative infiltrating historic accuracy.
> 
> There is no state of palestine to be occupied. The pali's are not an indigenous people.
> Self defense is not immoral
> Jordan is the Arab state, Gaza will soon enough be another Arab state and no number of Arab states in the original mandated area is going to resolve the real problem
> 
> Racism and bigotry. The Arab Muslims simply will not let go of their hatred long enough to realize they are the only ones paying for all the hatred. Israel is a vibrant and robust country with a healthy economy. The only people suffering from the hatred and bigotry of the Arabs, is the Arabs.
> 
> Solution, Detain and declare palestinian combatants POWs and remove/repatriate them to a neutral third country or party.
> 
> Throw the bums out and let the rest live their lives under gradually reducing restrictions.



There SHOULD be a nation-state of Palestine. We agree that it doesn't exist and hasn't existed in the past. I'm not the one disagreeing on those points. That is the crux of the issue.

The British cut the cheese -- broke for tea -- and FORGOT the partition idea.. No skin off their backs right? Ended up with a KINGDOM of Jordan, a dictator puppet in Syria and the Palestinians on their asses in refugee camps.

They are STILL in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria and Lebanon. And they are growing. Situation is Gaza and West Bank is slightly better than crowded refugee camps where there are ALSO no equal rights..

Point is -- there were so many OPPORTUNITIES for the PLO and PA to form a legitimate leadership that were squandered and STILL no Pali "zionist" ambitions for a homeland. *These folks are NOT motivated by NATIONALISM. They don't RESPECT governments. We shouldn't expect them to understand WHY they need one. And if you can't figure it out after sitting in a squalid refugee camp for 50 years being used as hostages and target practice -- there probably isn't really ANY hope for this "indigenous people".. *

So -- stop blaming their plight on Israel.. That's my position. Aint gonna urge them to DIE FOR NOTHING -- like some of the other "Pali supporters" do. I SERIOUSLY CARE about this sad story. But there's not much hope that THEY will ever understand how to fix their situation..


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be a game-changer.  What if, rather than trying to gain independence and sovereignty from Israel or in a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians were to negotiate with Jordan?  What if Jordan became the main player in the interaction with the Palestinians on the world stage?
> 
> How would that change or affect the conflict?
> 
> Let's say Israel ceded all of Areas A and B to Jordan, as well as those parts of Area C necessary to create a continguous Palestinian area attached to Jordan.
> 
> Note that this would not preclude a Palestinian State, it just changes who the Palestinians have to negotiate with in order to obtain sovereignty.  Wouldn't it make sense to negotiate with a partner rather than an enemy?  Wouldn't everyone agree that common interests can create peace where conflict and opposing points of view could not?
> 
> And wouldn't it be better for a country like Jordan to handle security issues with the Palestinians?
> 
> What does everyone think will happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought.  Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?
> 
> But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes they could rely on Jordan to provide the services and security that is necessary for incubating a Pali state. That's why I've said for ages that a 2 state solution involves Israel working with Jordan and Egypt and other volunteer Arab states. It is the most direct path to eventual autonomy for Palestine. *
> 
> Israel never got a chance to really negotiate with Jordan over the occupied West Bank, because by that time, the King was looking for ways to rid himself of the Palestinians. And as MOST of the posters have commented, the Palis burned that bridge when they ATTACKED their former host instead of negotiating for real autonomy with King Hussein...
> 
> It would be a monumentally BRAVE move for him to step forward now and take part in a reasonable solution..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really interesting thought - I wasn't thinking along those lines but rather that Palestinians would become part of Jordan.  That adds a whole new dimension to this and makes it seem like a better alternative than I thought.  I wonder how possible it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is the only way to get a nation state for Palestine. These folks are in the same position they were during the British Mandate. It was noted then that the "palestinians" were not even CLOSE to  being capable of self-rule. And some kind of "protectorate" would be required to transition them to statehood. Not a thing has changed. Except that the Palis blew the opportunity while Jordan was hosting them, and have blown away every attempt at electing representation leading to statehood.
> 
> The world just doesn't recognize unorganized indigenous populations for statehood.
> 
> Israel's error is letting this go on WAY too long. 50 year occupations are immoral and destructive. Israel's expectation always was that the Palis would get their act together and select responsible leadership. And barring that -- Israel doesn't want to be their MENTOR.. So --- some other nation(s) need to step up and volunteer. Preferably a neighbor or two. It's just obvious..
> 
> In parent language -- they need a strong talking to about insisting on getting Haifa back.. Or returning to Haifa as non-Israeli citizens. They cannot waste another 50 years. NOBODY has that much patience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with much of that.
> I think though, that Israel also has a desire to keep some of the land and that has probably stalled the process as well.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


----------



## Shusha

flacaltenn said:


> *These folks are NOT motivated by NATIONALISM. They don't RESPECT governments. We shouldn't expect them to understand WHY they need one. And if you can't figure it out after sitting in a squalid refugee camp for 50 years being used as hostages and target practice -- there probably isn't really ANY hope for this "indigenous people"..*


*
*
Oh man, I haven't read truer words on a debate forum on this issue in years.


----------



## flacaltenn

Shusha said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *These folks are NOT motivated by NATIONALISM. They don't RESPECT governments. We shouldn't expect them to understand WHY they need one. And if you can't figure it out after sitting in a squalid refugee camp for 50 years being used as hostages and target practice -- there probably isn't really ANY hope for this "indigenous people"..*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man, I haven't read truer words on a debate forum on this issue in years.
Click to expand...


Keeps me from being overly optimistic about potential outcomes here.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


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


Then Israel would probably make up some bullshit reason to attack Jordan.  Just like it did with Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt, etc.




Shusha said:


> How would that change or affect the conflict?


It increases the illusion Israel is not to be blamed for anything.




Shusha said:


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


Why don't Israel vacate the areas it took during the '67 war?




Shusha said:


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


Why don't you stop acting like an enemy and stop opposing everything (until you get your way), like a little 2 year old?




Shusha said:


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


No country on the planet, has security issues as ridiculous as Israel.








Shusha said:


> What does everyone think will happen?


 It would make sense.  Why would the 4th most militaristic country on the planet, want peace?


----------



## Billo_Really

flacaltenn said:


> * They don't RESPECT governments.*..


Oh, this is rich!

You refuse to recognize the Hamas government as "LEGIT", but claim "THEY'RE" the ones who don't RESPECT government.

How long does it take you to shave both those faces in the morning?


----------



## Billo_Really

Boston1 said:


> The language being used in these last few posts is a frightening example the revisionist narrative infiltrating historic accuracy.
> 
> There is no state of palestine to be occupied. The pali's are not an indigenous people.
> Self defense is not immoral
> Jordan is the Arab state, Gaza will soon enough be another Arab state and no number of Arab states in the original mandated area is going to resolve the real problem
> 
> Racism and bigotry. The Arab Muslims simply will not let go of their hatred long enough to realize they are the only ones paying for all the hatred. Israel is a vibrant and robust country with a healthy economy. The only people suffering from the hatred and bigotry of the Arabs, is the Arabs.
> 
> Solution, Detain and declare palestinian combatants POWs and remove/repatriate them to a neutral third country or party.
> 
> Throw the bums out and let the rest live their lives under gradually reducing restrictions.


No one shits on Holocaust victims more than you do.


----------



## flacaltenn

Billo_Really said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> * They don't RESPECT governments.*..
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, this is rich!
> 
> You refuse to recognize the Hamas government as "LEGIT", but claim "THEY'RE" the ones who don't RESPECT government.
> 
> How long does it take you to shave both those faces in the morning?
Click to expand...


In that part of the world -- they have little experience with democracy, open elections, or government benevolence. The governments are largely strong man dictatorships to keep the citizens from killing each over tribal issues. Hamas is no different. Willing to KILL the opposition for power. 

Govt is never considered a benefit in that region unless you're related to the Ruling party or get govt welfare or a welfare job.


----------



## Billo_Really

aris2chat said:


> There are protests because UN has cut payments and funds to camps.  They just don't have the money anymore.  Can't give what they don't have


How about the anti-war protest in Tel Aviv?







That big crowd ain't Palestinian's.  If it was, you'd see a lot of bodies lying on the ground next to butter knives.




aris2chat said:


> 68 years, time to get off the dole


How do you get off the dole when the country next door won't let you go to work?


----------



## Billo_Really

flacaltenn said:


> In that part of the world -- they have little experience with democracy, open elections, or government benevolence.


And the one time they do, you refuse to recognize it.


----------



## flacaltenn

Billo_Really said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> * They don't RESPECT governments.*..
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, this is rich!
> 
> You refuse to recognize the Hamas government as "LEGIT", but claim "THEY'RE" the ones who don't RESPECT government.
> 
> How long does it take you to shave both those faces in the morning?
Click to expand...


Giving Palestinians an "election choice" between Hamas and the Fatah is as exciting to them as if OUR choice was between another Clinton and another Bush..


----------



## Billo_Really

flacaltenn said:


> Giving Palestinians an "election choice" between Hamas and the Fatah is as exciting to them as if OUR choice was between another Clinton and another Bush..


And just what exactly do you have against a pothead and a lesbian becoming President?






BTW, the only reason Hamas is demonized so much, is because they wouldn't sell out like Fatah did.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


>



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


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really 

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

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


----------



## aris2chat

flacaltenn said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> * They don't RESPECT governments.*..
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, this is rich!
> 
> You refuse to recognize the Hamas government as "LEGIT", but claim "THEY'RE" the ones who don't RESPECT government.
> 
> How long does it take you to shave both those faces in the morning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that part of the world -- they have little experience with democracy, open elections, or government benevolence. The governments are largely strong man dictatorships to keep the citizens from killing each over tribal issues. Hamas is no different. Willing to KILL the opposition for power.
> 
> Govt is never considered a benefit in that region unless you're related to the Ruling party or get govt welfare or a welfare job.
Click to expand...



It was amazing how they used international law, or misused it, to advance their cause(s), but failed even in local elections or political activism between the various political/militia parties.  Inevitably disputes resulted in violence within the camps, even between leaders of the same party/group at times.  Governing was "strongest leads", not smartest or most popular.  Within the groups there is a form of hierarchy and organization that served as a form of government, but it was more tribal or feudal that what the west would consider government or authority of law.  More gang than government.  There are around 20 major parties or groups, with several sub groups and militias in each that "serve" the palestinians in and out of the camps, WB, G and across the MENA as well as various terrorist groups.


This is not a two to six party system with regular election.  Most today eventually fell under the umbrella of the PLO.  Leaders often reached power through assassination and threats.

Authority of the PLO and their groups vary widely from camp to camp.

We have seen most obvious the clash between Fatah and Hamas, but that is more complex when you include some 60 camps across the region as well as communities and neighborhoods around the world as well.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really
> 
> If places-where-large-communities-of-"others"-live grants sovereignty then large sections of the US, Europe and Argentina would be part of Israel as well.  Large sections of major cities like Toronto, Vancouver and San Fransisco would be Indian, or Korean, or Chinese or Japanese.
> 
> "Swiss-cheesing" a state only happens when the host State can't conceive of hosting any "others".


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

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


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


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


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


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote, Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, in the case of a POW, that is an option; to release prisoners to the ICRC (or even another similar NGO).  But that is not a requirement and is sometimes not possible.  When the British and Americans secretly rounded-up and handed over Polish, Czechs and White Russians to Stalin for probable execution; that would have been considered by the ICRC Refoulement or "forced repatriation."  thousands were sent to their deaths.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a member of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Fedayeen -- from that which is a true civilian.  There are plenty of video's  showing Arab Palestinians jumping into Ambulances in civilian clothes with small arms.  The was an News Crew that filmed non-uniformed Arab Palestinians setting up a rocket firing position in civilian clothes.
> 
> Similarly, during and after WWII, the Immigration into Palestine was cut significantly by the British who either forced them back into NAZI controlled territory or put them in British internment camps.  This created artificial refugee problems.  When the Jewish finally freed, they had no reason to trust the British or the ICRC that allowed it to happen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...you're right.  It's what I'm getting from Boston.  Apologies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Its what you are getting from yourself. What I said had nothing to do with civilians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.
Click to expand...







 Which is where they were supposed to go under the International laws of 1923. There was even provision in these laws for a forced move to arab Palestine it they did not want to live in Jewish Palestine peacefully and as full citizens. Even the UN stated that they could only stay/return if they gave an understanding that they would be prepared to act in a civilised manner and live peacefully with the Jews. Remind me again who it is that says they will never live in peace with the Jews, and why these laws have not been implemented in full ?


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> They've lived next to Jews for thousands of years and had no problem with their neighbors.



So why can't they do that NOW?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean you are for the expulsion of Jews from Jewish Palestine to make way for arab muslim extremists and terrorists. Read the mandate of Palestine to see who the land was given to in 1923, and what the qarab muslims got at the same time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm for the expulsion of NOBODY unless they choose to go elsewhere voluntarily.
> 
> What are you for?
Click to expand...






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


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really
> 
> If places-where-large-communities-of-"others"-live grants sovereignty then large sections of the US, Europe and Argentina would be part of Israel as well.  Large sections of major cities like Toronto, Vancouver and San Fransisco would be Indian, or Korean, or Chinese or Japanese.
> 
> "Swiss-cheesing" a state only happens when the host State can't conceive of hosting any "others".
> 
> 
> 
> There is no wall around Chinatown or Harlem.  Or Little Cambodia.  And they're certainly not treated as China's, Africa's or Cambodia's sovereign territory. But it is worth noting, that Indian Reservations are treated as sovereign native American territory.
> 
> If the US can do it for its indigenous population, why can't Israel?
Click to expand...






 Because it does, and Palestinians are not Isreals indigenous population anymore than they are Americas.

 But you forget that there are walls around other nations as well that are much more aggressive  than those around Palestine. Just as you forget that the Palestinians have been violent since 1916 when the Ottomans and LoN made no provisions for them in the surrender terms agreed. They sided with the losers and so had no rights to any land or to be given any land in the allocation made by the lands new sovereign rulers.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No country has borders like that.  The reason the Palestinians THINK they have borders like that is because they can't stomach the idea of living next to Jews.  If they could stomach the idea of living next to Jews we could draw real borders.  You know, like the ones in every other country in the world where we don't count every house which is lived in by "others" as belonging to a different country.
> 
> 
> 
> They've lived next to Jews for thousands of years and had no problem with their neighbors.  It wasn't until the Zionist migration did you have all the violence erupt in that area.
Click to expand...







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


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you can if they are Jews, and under INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 the land belongs to the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try to stick to the truth here Phoenall - do you think you can manage that?  Maybe even without a gratuitous "Jew Hater" non-sequiter?
> 
> First item - where have I said anything about expelling any Jews?  A link would suffice.
> 
> Second - no, it does not.  There was no force of law behind that from what I understand and I had to ask because I'm not going to pretend to be any sort of expert on that part of history.  So let's consider the situation at hand today which is ultimately what to do to resolve the territorial conflict and, in this thread in particular - should Israel cede to Jordan?
> 
> Involuntary civilian expulsion of any kind is inhumane - can we agree on that?
Click to expand...







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

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

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

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


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as the evidence shows the arab muslims were in the minority during the Ottoman rule of the area. Then after the defeat of 1916 the arab muslims flooded into Palestine in an attempt at forcing the LoN to change its mind. They came from the surrounding area hoping to steal the land the Jews had made fertile and get some sex slaves. This state of affairs has been going on ever since, and only the terminally stupid would believe that arab girls gave birth to triplets and quads every nine months from the age of 12 till they were 60 years old with no mortalities. This would mean that they had a worlds first and a population of super humans to achieve the population explosion they did. Even the civilised west cant come close to these figures and we have better health and medical care than the third world arabs in Palestine. Want to show how the population increased exponentially every time the arab muslims were defeated, and more Syrian and Egyptian family names entered the register as refugee's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" was debunked in another thread.
Click to expand...






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


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC
> 
> Its in the conventions
> 
> Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
> Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
> Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
> Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.
Click to expand...







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

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


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, in the context of this thread, bring Jordan to them.    Either way the concept is the same.  The reason for the conflict is the essential incompatibility of the two groups.  (Though I think it is closer to the truth that it is the inability of the Arab Muslims to accept Jewish national self-determination).  *The REASON there is still a conflict in this place is that the two groups never got separated like all the other groups did post-WWII (mostly by mass expulsion and population exchange).  They need to be separated.  *
> 
> Israel doesn't need the land in Areas A and B.  And Israel certainly doesn't want the population.
> 
> The big concern, of course, is security.  And the question there is whether or not Jordan will support Israel in keeping the region free from extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those kind of seperations, however, have usually led to bloodbaths and huge numbers of displaced peoples and, they don't always work (ie India/Bangladesh/Pakistan) because people think they know more than they do about the people.
> 
> But talk of seperation reminds me of something I read (I'll have to try to find the source).  Sharon's policy of complete seperation was one that was intended to reduce attacks from Palestinian terrorists but also had another effect.  Where as previously there was a lot more mingling of Palestinians and Jews now there are many Jews who have never met a Palestinian and many Palestinians who have never met a Jew.  When that kind of seperation occurs it's easier to believe conspiracy theories and demonize the other as non-people and this is evident. So IS complete seperation the answer?
Click to expand...







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


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


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



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

I would be very interested in seeing links to those!


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the application of the laws concerning ths conduct of war as defined by the geneva conventions results in the removal of enemy combatants from Israel then I'm all for it.
> 
> I don't see any problems with turning prisoners of war over to a neutral third party and it certainly looks like the default third party is the IRC. So drive the POWs to the border and release them into the custody of the IRC
> 
> Its in the conventions
> 
> Some other things I notice is that it looks like whatever country is the country of origin is responsible for the cost of repatriation or transfer to a neutral nation after the POW have served whatever sentence might be imposed on the prisoner by the sovereign power.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 115. No prisoner of war on whom a disciplinary punishment has been imposed and who is eligible for repatriation or for accommodation in a neutral country, may be kept back on the plea that he has not undergone his punishment.
> Prisoners of war detained in connection with a judicial prosecution or conviction, and who are designated for repatriation or accommodation in a neutral country, may benefit by such measures before the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment, if the Detaining Power consents.
> Parties to the conflict shall communicate to each other the names of those who will be detained until the end of the proceedings or the completion of the punishment.
> Art 116. The cost of repatriating prisoners of war or of transporting them to a neutral country shall be borne, from the frontiers of the Detaining Power, by the Power on which the said prisoners depend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case there is no country of origin since the origin is the country they reside in and are trying to win freedom for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you can claim a nonexistent country as your country of origin, however I don't think it really matters as its not up to the individual POW to make this decision. The sovereign power is within its legal boundaries to simply turn a POW over to the default neutral third party.
> 
> One thing I don't see in the conventions is where Israel is responsible to provide a country to POWs so again a fourth Arab state within the mandated area is not only unnecessary but uncalled for
> 
> Although I'm still searching for the specific article that designated the IRC as the default third party. I stumbled on it once while I was looking for something else but damn if I can find it when I need it. Go figure.
> 
> Rocco brought up the issues of forced repatriation vs refoulment so I think you'd do better arguing that issue than claiming a nonexistent country and the country of origin.
> 
> I've been reading up on that one as well, most of this stuff I learned in middle east studies but it was a while ago and I'm way rusty.
> 
> There's also a clause about repatriation to a neutral nation that negates the forced repatriation argument. I'll dig that up when I have time but yeah.
> 
> The conventions clearly give Israel the rights as the sovereign power to detain and remove prisoners of war from the war zone and to a neutral third party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then their country of origin would have to be what ever the country which holds the territory they are from - Israel.
Click to expand...





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


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing links to those!
Click to expand...







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

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

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


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing links to those!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you haven't, you suffer from selective reading.
> 
> So you have not seen the many posts by billo demanding the Jews ( Zionists) be kicked out of Israel to make way fro the arab muslims. Or the many posts by penny that demands the Jews be kicked out of the US so that she can gloat over having been part of the " final solution "
> 
> You really are an ignorant prick aren't you, or is it selective ignorance on your part.
Click to expand...


Post a link to what you claim Phoney...

Why would ANYONE just take your word for it?


----------



## Boston1

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really
> 
> If places-where-large-communities-of-"others"-live grants sovereignty then large sections of the US, Europe and Argentina would be part of Israel as well.  Large sections of major cities like Toronto, Vancouver and San Fransisco would be Indian, or Korean, or Chinese or Japanese.
> 
> "Swiss-cheesing" a state only happens when the host State can't conceive of hosting any "others".
> 
> 
> 
> There is no wall around Chinatown or Harlem.  Or Little Cambodia.  And they're certainly not treated as China's, Africa's or Cambodia's sovereign territory. But it is worth noting, that Indian Reservations are treated as sovereign native American territory.
> 
> If the US can do it for its indigenous population, why can't Israel?
Click to expand...







WOW

Just WOW

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

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

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


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing links to those!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you haven't, you suffer from selective reading.
> 
> So you have not seen the many posts by billo demanding the Jews ( Zionists) be kicked out of Israel to make way fro the arab muslims. Or the many posts by penny that demands the Jews be kicked out of the US so that she can gloat over having been part of the " final solution "
> 
> You really are an ignorant prick aren't you, or is it selective ignorance on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link to what you claim Phoney...
> 
> Why would ANYONE just take your word for it?
Click to expand...







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


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing links to those!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you haven't, you suffer from selective reading.
> 
> So you have not seen the many posts by billo demanding the Jews ( Zionists) be kicked out of Israel to make way fro the arab muslims. Or the many posts by penny that demands the Jews be kicked out of the US so that she can gloat over having been part of the " final solution "
> 
> You really are an ignorant prick aren't you, or is it selective ignorance on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link to what you claim Phoney...
> 
> Why would ANYONE just take your word for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you have seen the posts and have chosen to ignore them, so posting links would do no good as you would just ignore them all over again. Just as you ignore the links showing that Israel is not in breach of International laws, and still you claim they are.
Click to expand...


No Phoney...

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

Support your comments or shut the fuck up ...

Go on, just one will do...

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


----------



## Boston1

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

Answer

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

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

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

Not one more inch


----------



## Humanity

Boston1 said:


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




 
OFF TOPIC...

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


----------



## Boston1

I would suggest the petty squabbling isn't on topic 

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

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


----------



## Humanity

Boston1 said:


> I would suggest the petty squabbling isn't on topic
> 
> I'd further suggest that ceding land to terrorist is the worst of all possible options.
> 
> The terrorists should be removed from the equation militarily and whatever of the Arab Muslim population remains can negotiate their unconditional surrender




 

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

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


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought.  Also...reminds me of the (rumor?) of Egypt giving part of the Sinai to Gaza to form a state?
> 
> But what would that really gain Israel - could Israel trust Jordan to negotiate what amount to their security needs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes they could rely on Jordan to provide the services and security that is necessary for incubating a Pali state. That's why I've said for ages that a 2 state solution involves Israel working with Jordan and Egypt and other volunteer Arab states. It is the most direct path to eventual autonomy for Palestine. *
> 
> Israel never got a chance to really negotiate with Jordan over the occupied West Bank, because by that time, the King was looking for ways to rid himself of the Palestinians. And as MOST of the posters have commented, the Palis burned that bridge when they ATTACKED their former host instead of negotiating for real autonomy with King Hussein...
> 
> It would be a monumentally BRAVE move for him to step forward now and take part in a reasonable solution..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really interesting thought - I wasn't thinking along those lines but rather that Palestinians would become part of Jordan.  That adds a whole new dimension to this and makes it seem like a better alternative than I thought.  I wonder how possible it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is the only way to get a nation state for Palestine. These folks are in the same position they were during the British Mandate. It was noted then that the "palestinians" were not even CLOSE to  being capable of self-rule. And some kind of "protectorate" would be required to transition them to statehood. Not a thing has changed. Except that the Palis blew the opportunity while Jordan was hosting them, and have blown away every attempt at electing representation leading to statehood.
> 
> The world just doesn't recognize unorganized indigenous populations for statehood.
> 
> Israel's error is letting this go on WAY too long. 50 year occupations are immoral and destructive. Israel's expectation always was that the Palis would get their act together and select responsible leadership. And barring that -- Israel doesn't want to be their MENTOR.. So --- some other nation(s) need to step up and volunteer. Preferably a neighbor or two. It's just obvious..
> 
> In parent language -- they need a strong talking to about insisting on getting Haifa back.. Or returning to Haifa as non-Israeli citizens. They cannot waste another 50 years. NOBODY has that much patience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with much of that.
> I think though, that Israel also has a desire to keep some of the land and that has probably stalled the process as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 years after the 67 war when Israel acquired that territory. Life goes on. *See my post above. *
> 
> And after the "Gaza experience" of dragging Israeli settlers kicking and screaming totally out of Gaza to do a clean handover to "palestinian government" ---- that mistake is not likely to get repeated..
> 
> IN FACT -- when Israel launched Gaza on a path to autonomy -- they were also preparing to launch a few northern sections of the West Bank into autonomy with FURTHER settler evictions.. But the Gaza deal died after only MONTHS when the PA was forced into elections and crashed and burned.
> 
> Gazans fleeing into Jordan after the '67 war are TODAY treated as garbage compared to the original Palestinian influx in '48.   And if sitting on your ass being denied rights in a Jordanian camp isn't enough to make a "Zionist" nationalist out of you --- there's not a lot of hope for their cause. They just see no freaking USE for organization and government and forming a real nation..
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All within established international law of course.
> Throw the bums out
> And not cede another inch to the Muslim Arab colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean you are for the expulsion of Jews from Jewish Palestine to make way for arab muslim extremists and terrorists. Read the mandate of Palestine to see who the land was given to in 1923, and what the qarab muslims got at the same time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm for the expulsion of NOBODY unless they choose to go elsewhere voluntarily.
> 
> What are you for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The removal of terrorists, fifth columnists and other violent groups from any land they are not prepared to live in peacefully. there should be an international task force set up for just this problem that will go to where there are uprisings like those of the Palestinians and to quell the violence by arresting the front runners and then firing non lethal rounds at the activists. If they face lethal fire then they will respond in kind and have orders to shoot first ask questions later. If we had this in place now gaza would be a bombed out city inhabited by ghosts, along with Syria, Iraq and many other Islamic third world nations
Click to expand...


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


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes they could rely on Jordan to provide the services and security that is necessary for incubating a Pali state. That's why I've said for ages that a 2 state solution involves Israel working with Jordan and Egypt and other volunteer Arab states. It is the most direct path to eventual autonomy for Palestine. *
> 
> Israel never got a chance to really negotiate with Jordan over the occupied West Bank, because by that time, the King was looking for ways to rid himself of the Palestinians. And as MOST of the posters have commented, the Palis burned that bridge when they ATTACKED their former host instead of negotiating for real autonomy with King Hussein...
> 
> It would be a monumentally BRAVE move for him to step forward now and take part in a reasonable solution..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really interesting thought - I wasn't thinking along those lines but rather that Palestinians would become part of Jordan.  That adds a whole new dimension to this and makes it seem like a better alternative than I thought.  I wonder how possible it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is the only way to get a nation state for Palestine. These folks are in the same position they were during the British Mandate. It was noted then that the "palestinians" were not even CLOSE to  being capable of self-rule. And some kind of "protectorate" would be required to transition them to statehood. Not a thing has changed. Except that the Palis blew the opportunity while Jordan was hosting them, and have blown away every attempt at electing representation leading to statehood.
> 
> The world just doesn't recognize unorganized indigenous populations for statehood.
> 
> Israel's error is letting this go on WAY too long. 50 year occupations are immoral and destructive. Israel's expectation always was that the Palis would get their act together and select responsible leadership. And barring that -- Israel doesn't want to be their MENTOR.. So --- some other nation(s) need to step up and volunteer. Preferably a neighbor or two. It's just obvious..
> 
> In parent language -- they need a strong talking to about insisting on getting Haifa back.. Or returning to Haifa as non-Israeli citizens. They cannot waste another 50 years. NOBODY has that much patience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with much of that.
> I think though, that Israel also has a desire to keep some of the land and that has probably stalled the process as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 years after the 67 war when Israel acquired that territory. Life goes on. *See my post above. *
> 
> And after the "Gaza experience" of dragging Israeli settlers kicking and screaming totally out of Gaza to do a clean handover to "palestinian government" ---- that mistake is not likely to get repeated..
> 
> IN FACT -- when Israel launched Gaza on a path to autonomy -- they were also preparing to launch a few northern sections of the West Bank into autonomy with FURTHER settler evictions.. But the Gaza deal died after only MONTHS when the PA was forced into elections and crashed and burned.
> 
> Gazans fleeing into Jordan after the '67 war are TODAY treated as garbage compared to the original Palestinian influx in '48.   And if sitting on your ass being denied rights in a Jordanian camp isn't enough to make a "Zionist" nationalist out of you --- there's not a lot of hope for their cause. They just see no freaking USE for organization and government and forming a real nation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Gaza experience would not have happened if Israel hadn't built settlements on occupied territory.  That's part of the problem that can't be ignored - they build settlements on Occupied Territory and impedes efforts towards peace.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you can if they are Jews, and under INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 the land belongs to the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try to stick to the truth here Phoenall - do you think you can manage that?  Maybe even without a gratuitous "Jew Hater" non-sequiter?
> 
> First item - where have I said anything about expelling any Jews?  A link would suffice.
> 
> Second - no, it does not.  There was no force of law behind that from what I understand and I had to ask because I'm not going to pretend to be any sort of expert on that part of history.  So let's consider the situation at hand today which is ultimately what to do to resolve the territorial conflict and, in this thread in particular - should Israel cede to Jordan?
> 
> Involuntary civilian expulsion of any kind is inhumane - can we agree on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, *I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.
Click to expand...


Where?  A link to said support will suffice.



> There is force of law as it was by International agreement that the sovereign owners would grant titke of the land to the Jews for their NATIONal home. The same international law also granted arab muslims land in the form of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Egypt. So they must also be judged on the same merits by you.
> 
> NO why should they. Would Jordan cede land to Israel ?
> 
> Not when you support that action by muslims the world over, and this is shown by your support for muslims. You do know that since Israel came into existence that islam has managed to expel over 50 million people from their homes by violent means, and here you are complaining about illegal squatters being evicted from land that was never theirs in the first place.



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

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


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as the evidence shows the arab muslims were in the minority during the Ottoman rule of the area. Then after the defeat of 1916 the arab muslims flooded into Palestine in an attempt at forcing the LoN to change its mind. They came from the surrounding area hoping to steal the land the Jews had made fertile and get some sex slaves. This state of affairs has been going on ever since, and only the terminally stupid would believe that arab girls gave birth to triplets and quads every nine months from the age of 12 till they were 60 years old with no mortalities. This would mean that they had a worlds first and a population of super humans to achieve the population explosion they did. Even the civilised west cant come close to these figures and we have better health and medical care than the third world arabs in Palestine. Want to show how the population increased exponentially every time the arab muslims were defeated, and more Syrian and Egyptian family names entered the register as refugee's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" was debunked in another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WAS IT or was it just ignored because it shows the arab muslims have no legal right to the land. Explain how with a pool of only 100,000 women of child bearing age the muslims managed to increase their population by over 30% every year, with no recorded infant deaths in a 15 year period ?
Click to expand...



No.  It was thoroughly debunked.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really interesting thought - I wasn't thinking along those lines but rather that Palestinians would become part of Jordan.  That adds a whole new dimension to this and makes it seem like a better alternative than I thought.  I wonder how possible it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is the only way to get a nation state for Palestine. These folks are in the same position they were during the British Mandate. It was noted then that the "palestinians" were not even CLOSE to  being capable of self-rule. And some kind of "protectorate" would be required to transition them to statehood. Not a thing has changed. Except that the Palis blew the opportunity while Jordan was hosting them, and have blown away every attempt at electing representation leading to statehood.
> 
> The world just doesn't recognize unorganized indigenous populations for statehood.
> 
> Israel's error is letting this go on WAY too long. 50 year occupations are immoral and destructive. Israel's expectation always was that the Palis would get their act together and select responsible leadership. And barring that -- Israel doesn't want to be their MENTOR.. So --- some other nation(s) need to step up and volunteer. Preferably a neighbor or two. It's just obvious..
> 
> In parent language -- they need a strong talking to about insisting on getting Haifa back.. Or returning to Haifa as non-Israeli citizens. They cannot waste another 50 years. NOBODY has that much patience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with much of that.
> I think though, that Israel also has a desire to keep some of the land and that has probably stalled the process as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 years after the 67 war when Israel acquired that territory. Life goes on. *See my post above. *
> 
> And after the "Gaza experience" of dragging Israeli settlers kicking and screaming totally out of Gaza to do a clean handover to "palestinian government" ---- that mistake is not likely to get repeated..
> 
> IN FACT -- when Israel launched Gaza on a path to autonomy -- they were also preparing to launch a few northern sections of the West Bank into autonomy with FURTHER settler evictions.. But the Gaza deal died after only MONTHS when the PA was forced into elections and crashed and burned.
> 
> Gazans fleeing into Jordan after the '67 war are TODAY treated as garbage compared to the original Palestinian influx in '48.   And if sitting on your ass being denied rights in a Jordanian camp isn't enough to make a "Zionist" nationalist out of you --- there's not a lot of hope for their cause. They just see no freaking USE for organization and government and forming a real nation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Gaza experience would not have happened if Israel hadn't built settlements on occupied territory.  That's part of the problem that can't be ignored - they build settlements on Occupied Territory and impedes efforts towards peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to ignore all the flag-waving and "noise" on this thread -- *maybe moderation needs to wake up*..
Click to expand...


Quite possibly - I'm going through "alerts" and haven't reviewed the whole thread - it's moved very quickly.



> But Israel did the right thing and disassembled EVERY trace of Israeli life in Gaza before they turned it over to the PA.. That's the important part. And look how it turned out.
> 
> Not to mention the Palis wasted a lot of party time desecrating Synagogues in Gaza rather than focusing on running the state..



Agree on the first count - they had no right to build there in the first place, and should not have allowed it, or allowed the settlers to hope for permenance - that's the problem with occupied territories.

Agree - the Palestinians wasted a good opportunity there.


----------



## Coyote

*Guys - just so the topic doesn't get derailed - I'm moving some posts to the Mandate thread where they can be discussed more appropriately *


----------



## Coyote

*This battle of who has the bigger flag is beginning to look like a grade school pissing contest and distracts from the discussion - anyone want to be the grown up here?*


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never, at any point, seen any "team Palestine" posters here advocating "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing links to those!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you haven't, you suffer from selective reading.
> 
> So you have not seen the many posts by billo demanding the Jews ( Zionists) be kicked out of Israel to make way fro the arab muslims. Or the many posts by penny that demands the Jews be kicked out of the US so that she can gloat over having been part of the " final solution "
> 
> You really are an ignorant prick aren't you, or is it selective ignorance on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link to what you claim Phoney...
> 
> Why would ANYONE just take your word for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you have seen the posts and have chosen to ignore them, so posting links would do no good as you would just ignore them all over again. Just as you ignore the links showing that Israel is not in breach of International laws, and still you claim they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Phoney...
> 
> You just make this shit up all the time.... Why do you think everyone calls you Phoney!
> 
> Support your comments or shut the fuck up ...
> 
> Go on, just one will do...
> 
> One that states... "the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth."
Click to expand...







 They don't it is just you and some other morons that jumped on the band wagon


 I have done so and you have ignored it as usual, because you cant deny that this is the case. Just as in your own post when you wanted to know about Israel lifting the blockade, I posted evidence to show that they have and you have ignored the thread ever since.  Your usual tactic when you are shown to be wrong is to run away and hide. Time to start running


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes they could rely on Jordan to provide the services and security that is necessary for incubating a Pali state. That's why I've said for ages that a 2 state solution involves Israel working with Jordan and Egypt and other volunteer Arab states. It is the most direct path to eventual autonomy for Palestine. *
> 
> Israel never got a chance to really negotiate with Jordan over the occupied West Bank, because by that time, the King was looking for ways to rid himself of the Palestinians. And as MOST of the posters have commented, the Palis burned that bridge when they ATTACKED their former host instead of negotiating for real autonomy with King Hussein...
> 
> It would be a monumentally BRAVE move for him to step forward now and take part in a reasonable solution..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really interesting thought - I wasn't thinking along those lines but rather that Palestinians would become part of Jordan.  That adds a whole new dimension to this and makes it seem like a better alternative than I thought.  I wonder how possible it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is the only way to get a nation state for Palestine. These folks are in the same position they were during the British Mandate. It was noted then that the "palestinians" were not even CLOSE to  being capable of self-rule. And some kind of "protectorate" would be required to transition them to statehood. Not a thing has changed. Except that the Palis blew the opportunity while Jordan was hosting them, and have blown away every attempt at electing representation leading to statehood.
> 
> The world just doesn't recognize unorganized indigenous populations for statehood.
> 
> Israel's error is letting this go on WAY too long. 50 year occupations are immoral and destructive. Israel's expectation always was that the Palis would get their act together and select responsible leadership. And barring that -- Israel doesn't want to be their MENTOR.. So --- some other nation(s) need to step up and volunteer. Preferably a neighbor or two. It's just obvious..
> 
> In parent language -- they need a strong talking to about insisting on getting Haifa back.. Or returning to Haifa as non-Israeli citizens. They cannot waste another 50 years. NOBODY has that much patience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with much of that.
> I think though, that Israel also has a desire to keep some of the land and that has probably stalled the process as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 years after the 67 war when Israel acquired that territory. Life goes on. *See my post above. *
> 
> And after the "Gaza experience" of dragging Israeli settlers kicking and screaming totally out of Gaza to do a clean handover to "palestinian government" ---- that mistake is not likely to get repeated..
> 
> IN FACT -- when Israel launched Gaza on a path to autonomy -- they were also preparing to launch a few northern sections of the West Bank into autonomy with FURTHER settler evictions.. But the Gaza deal died after only MONTHS when the PA was forced into elections and crashed and burned.
> 
> Gazans fleeing into Jordan after the '67 war are TODAY treated as garbage compared to the original Palestinian influx in '48.   And if sitting on your ass being denied rights in a Jordanian camp isn't enough to make a "Zionist" nationalist out of you --- there's not a lot of hope for their cause. They just see no freaking USE for organization and government and forming a real nation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Gaza experience would not have happened if Israel hadn't built settlements on occupied territory.  That's part of the problem that can't be ignored - they build settlements on Occupied Territory and impedes efforts towards peace.
Click to expand...







 Then the Palestinians should not have occupied Israeli land should they. They land was owned by the Jews until they were forcibly removed in 1949 and their land stolen by the Palestinians. In 1967 they were able to reclaim their lands and proceeded to build on it. In 1999 the Israelis made a treaty with the Palestinians that gave the Israelis the right to build even more settlements on certain areas of the west bank. Now the Palestinians have realised that the Jews have shown them up by building better and more profitably than they ever could so they are now bleating about " illegal " settlements and you take it all in.

 The problem is the muslims are losing face all the time and cant stand being laughed at by the rest of the arab world so they LIE hoping that idiots will believe them and fight on their side. Just like you are doing now.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think that it is time to relook at the entire concept of "International Law."  Just over a decade ago, I was marveling at how some people could even rationally conceive of certain topics.  The one symposium that caught my attention at the time was:
> 
> *A Weapon to Destroy Israel:
> Arab States' Struggle Against Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem*
> (Downloadable at this link.)​
> "If the Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."  (Gamal Abdel Nasser)
> 
> "Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm in Egypt says that Israel would cease to exist by the end of the decade."
> 
> Once I understood this, I understood the need to protect Israel.
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is about moral and ethical mind sets.
> 
> The Arab rulers treated the Arab refugees … as a weapon with which to strike at Israel.  This concept has expanded to roles more violent than what was experienced in the past.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean supporting the expulsion of millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean you are for the expulsion of Jews from Jewish Palestine to make way for arab muslim extremists and terrorists. Read the mandate of Palestine to see who the land was given to in 1923, and what the qarab muslims got at the same time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm for the expulsion of NOBODY unless they choose to go elsewhere voluntarily.
> 
> What are you for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The removal of terrorists, fifth columnists and other violent groups from any land they are not prepared to live in peacefully. there should be an international task force set up for just this problem that will go to where there are uprisings like those of the Palestinians and to quell the violence by arresting the front runners and then firing non lethal rounds at the activists. If they face lethal fire then they will respond in kind and have orders to shoot first ask questions later. If we had this in place now gaza would be a bombed out city inhabited by ghosts, along with Syria, Iraq and many other Islamic third world nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like expulsion.  How would determine "fifth columnists" - all Pali's?
Click to expand...






 Those that have links to any terrorist organisation or have been found guilty of any act of aggression against Israel. Those that have no links or no arrest record would be allowed to stay and become full citizens. I believe that UN resolution 242 has this as one of its fundamental principles


----------



## Boston1

I'm not sure its on topic but since the land being discussed fell under the option for an Israeli National Homeland and since the Arab Muslims in the mandated area already have a state in Jordan why would the Israeli's offer even more land to the Arab Muslims in whatever form. 

I realize there is a perceived demographic problem of Absorbing that many hostile Arab Muslims but that problem could be significant'y reduced through the judicious application of international law. 

Israel can't cede the west bank and still maintain a defensible perimeter. The whole idea just doesn't work. But I'm not clear on why some people think the west bank is in any way ( so called ) palestinian in the first place. Or is it somehow intended to bolster this myth of a palestinian people. 

As I recall the Arab Muslims rejected every effort to form another state in the mandated area and instead reiterated its goal of destroying Israel at every turn. 

So how is any of the west bank, an area specifically designated as available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland, somehow belonging to anyone else but the Israeli's ?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it supports the repatriation of any number of enemy combatants from occupying a sovereign nation.
> 
> I hadn't brushed up on the Geneva conventions for quite a while but The UN charter gives member states the right of self defense. While the Geneva conventions dictates the treatment of prisoners of war as well as civilians. With the Arab leagues declaration of invasion/war. ( most declarations of war don't actually use the term war ) Israel is clearly and legally defending itself within the mandated area west of the Jordan river. All of the area west of the Jordan river as the area was never legally segregated into Judaic and Arab zones. So I think sovereignty reverts to its last legally agreed upon use.
> 
> In any case I'd say the law is clearly on the Israeli side in its response to any remaining hostile combatants against the state whether they be the original hostiles or the descendants of those original hostiles. The conventions require Israel to repatriate those hostiles at the cessation of hostilities
> 
> Which IMHO means the states that declared war against Israel. But it gets muddy. Its posible not all combatants to be expelled are from Egypt Jordan Syrian Iraq or Lebanon. Its also obvious that these signatories to the declaration of war might not allow their defeated armies to return.
> 
> Its really quite clear that Israel has not just a right but an obligation to repatriate prisoners of war. Really the only question that I don't have an answer to at the moment is where in the conventions a country is required to accept the return of its defeated armies.
> 
> Maybe Rocco has an answer to that one
> 
> But Israel under the conventions is allowed to detain combatants, anyone lending aid to combatants even anyone suspected of aiding or being a combatants and considering them prisoners of war.
> 
> The conventions also suggest after a period of one year after the end of hostilities prisoners of war should be returned. And it looks like there's no provision preventing the parol of prisoners during an ongoing conflict. So really Israel could unilaterally begin repatriation any time and simply hand the prisoners over to the red cross. Let them figure out who's going to take them.
> 
> In the end no more land should be offered by Israel to anyone and everything they presently have the international community should recognize as being annexed into Israel. I'd also fully support the repatriation of any hostile forces which remain in Israel either to their respective countries or to the red cross, without delay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you can if they are Jews, and under INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 the land belongs to the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try to stick to the truth here Phoenall - do you think you can manage that?  Maybe even without a gratuitous "Jew Hater" non-sequiter?
> 
> First item - where have I said anything about expelling any Jews?  A link would suffice.
> 
> Second - no, it does not.  There was no force of law behind that from what I understand and I had to ask because I'm not going to pretend to be any sort of expert on that part of history.  So let's consider the situation at hand today which is ultimately what to do to resolve the territorial conflict and, in this thread in particular - should Israel cede to Jordan?
> 
> Involuntary civilian expulsion of any kind is inhumane - can we agree on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When you have supported the Palestinians in their attacks on the Jews, *I don't see you having a go at team Palestine when they advocate the mass murder/eviction of Jews from every nation on earth. Just look at billo and penny for examples of this being posted on here every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where?  A link to said support will suffice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is force of law as it was by International agreement that the sovereign owners would grant titke of the land to the Jews for their NATIONal home. The same international law also granted arab muslims land in the form of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Egypt. So they must also be judged on the same merits by you.
> 
> NO why should they. Would Jordan cede land to Israel ?
> 
> Not when you support that action by muslims the world over, and this is shown by your support for muslims. You do know that since Israel came into existence that islam has managed to expel over 50 million people from their homes by violent means, and here you are complaining about illegal squatters being evicted from land that was never theirs in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What international agreement?  My understanding, based on the discussion in the Mandate thread is that no promises were specifically made to either the Arabs or the Jews nor was it binding as a force of law.  I'm defering to the expertise of others becuase it's very complicated.
> 
> Let's clarify - you DO support mass expulsion of civilians?
Click to expand...






 Given if you read above.

 Depends on what it was for, if it was to provide lasting peace then they would. ( shown by the land swaps when they signed a peace treaty with Israel )

Read the mandate again as it was a legal document and clearly states that part of Palestine was to be for the Jewish NATIONal home. Just as the other mandates granted land to the arab muslims.


No I support the mass expulsion of terrorists, insurgents, illegal immigrants, hostile aliens, criminals and those who have no intention of living in peace. That is why 50,000 were expelled in 1949 by Israel with the full backing of the UN


----------



## flacaltenn

Boston1 said:


> I'm not sure its on topic but since the land being discussed fell under the option for an Israeli National Homeland and since the Arab Muslims in the mandated area already have a state in Jordan why would the Israeli's offer even more land to the Arab Muslims in whatever form.
> 
> I realize there is a perceived demographic problem of Absorbing that many hostile Arab Muslims but that problem could be significant'y reduced through the judicious application of international law.
> 
> Israel can't cede the west bank and still maintain a defensible perimeter. The whole idea just doesn't work. But I'm not clear on why some people think the west bank is in any way ( so called ) palestinian in the first place. Or is it somehow intended to bolster this myth of a palestinian people.
> 
> As I recall the Arab Muslims rejected every effort to form another state in the mandated area and instead reiterated its goal of destroying Israel at every turn.
> 
> So how is any of the west bank, an area specifically designated as available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland, somehow belonging to anyone else but the Israeli's ?



West Bank was LARGELY in jewish EXCLUDED area.. That's why it came under Jordanian "protection" in the 1st place. As relates to the OP -- Jordan does need to step up and play a primary role in the disposition of Palestinian land now occupied by Israel. Historically -- THEY are the entity entrusted with "mentoring and developing" Palestinian self-rule..


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as the evidence shows the arab muslims were in the minority during the Ottoman rule of the area. Then after the defeat of 1916 the arab muslims flooded into Palestine in an attempt at forcing the LoN to change its mind. They came from the surrounding area hoping to steal the land the Jews had made fertile and get some sex slaves. This state of affairs has been going on ever since, and only the terminally stupid would believe that arab girls gave birth to triplets and quads every nine months from the age of 12 till they were 60 years old with no mortalities. This would mean that they had a worlds first and a population of super humans to achieve the population explosion they did. Even the civilised west cant come close to these figures and we have better health and medical care than the third world arabs in Palestine. Want to show how the population increased exponentially every time the arab muslims were defeated, and more Syrian and Egyptian family names entered the register as refugee's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" was debunked in another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WAS IT or was it just ignored because it shows the arab muslims have no legal right to the land. Explain how with a pool of only 100,000 women of child bearing age the muslims managed to increase their population by over 30% every year, with no recorded infant deaths in a 15 year period ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It was thoroughly debunked.
Click to expand...





 I never saw it and many have tried to debunk the genetic studies until their own links are shown to disagree with their claims or to be a pack of lies reported by hate sites. Like the khazar myth that no one can find any mention of in historical documents before the mid 20C.
What has been debunked is the studies that are full of maybe's and could haves, or the ones that claim modern Jews are descended from just 3 European women


----------



## Boston1

flacaltenn said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure its on topic but since the land being discussed fell under the option for an Israeli National Homeland and since the Arab Muslims in the mandated area already have a state in Jordan why would the Israeli's offer even more land to the Arab Muslims in whatever form.
> 
> I realize there is a perceived demographic problem of Absorbing that many hostile Arab Muslims but that problem could be significant'y reduced through the judicious application of international law.
> 
> Israel can't cede the west bank and still maintain a defensible perimeter. The whole idea just doesn't work. But I'm not clear on why some people think the west bank is in any way ( so called ) palestinian in the first place. Or is it somehow intended to bolster this myth of a palestinian people.
> 
> As I recall the Arab Muslims rejected every effort to form another state in the mandated area and instead reiterated its goal of destroying Israel at every turn.
> 
> So how is any of the west bank, an area specifically designated as available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland, somehow belonging to anyone else but the Israeli's ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> West Bank was LARGELY in jewish EXCLUDED area.. That's why it came under Jordanian "protection" in the 1st place. As relates to the OP -- Jordan does need to step up and play a primary role in the disposition of Palestinian land now occupied by Israel. Historically -- THEY are the entity entrusted with "mentoring and developing" Palestinian self-rule..
Click to expand...


I'm not seeing it anywhere, the Jordan memorandum says everything EAST of the Jordan is exempt from the the articles which allow for a national Jewish homeland. So by extension that means everything WEST is available for the creation of the Jewish state. 

Which is part of Israel's argument against the term occupation. That and the land was unclaimed or unspecified in both its declaration of independence or the mandate 

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Looks like the area to be excluded was unspecified in the exact document. 

Anyway I'm not finding anything that designates the disputed territories as NOT being available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland


----------



## Boston1

Once again I'm not so sure this is on topic but its an important aspect of any question of Israel ceding land, particularly if the land in question can't be shown to NOT be israels in the first place. 

Hate double negatives. ;--) 

Quote 


Trans-Jordan Memorandum, 16 September 1922[edit]

Geneva,

September 23rd, 1922.

ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan.

Note by the Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General has the honour to communicate for the information of the Members of the League, a memorandum relating to Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate presented by the British Government to the Council of the League on September 16th, 1922.

The memorandum was approved by the Council subject to the decision taken at its meeting in London on July 24th, 1922, with regard to the coming into force of the Palestine and Syrian mandates.

Memorandum by the British Representative.

1. Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine provides as follows :— " In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."

2. In pursuance of the provisions of this Article, His Majesty's Government invite the Council to pass the following resolution : — "The following provisions of the Mandate for Palestine are not applicable to the territory known as Trans-Jordan, which comprises all *territory lying to the east of a line drawn from a point two miles west of the town of Akaba on the Gulf of that name up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan to its junction with the River Yarmuk; thence up the centre of that river to the Syrian Frontier."*

Preamble. — Recitals 2 and 3.

Article 2. — The words "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and".

Article 4.

Article 6.

Article 7. — The sentence " There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

Article 11. — The second sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph.

Article 13.

Article 14.

Article 22.

Article 23.

In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Trans-Jordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.

3. His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Trans-Jordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable.

End Quote 

The only exclusion made against the formation of a national Jewish homeland is from the center of the Jordan EAST. 

There's no other restrictions 

All the UN efforts were rejected by the Arabs themselves and would have been only suggestions anyway unless passed by the security council. 

So where am I misreading this if there is any validity to the Arab Muslim claims to anything West of the Jordan ?


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


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



Blaming Israel for Gaza now, Coyote?  Again, "settlement" or, more properly, "places where Jews live" are not an impediment to peace.  

When, exactly, should Jewish people not have been allowed to purchase land and build in Gaza?  In antiquity?  In 1930 when a Jewish man bought land there?  In 1946?  In 1970?  

How is it not problematic for you to exclude people from living in a place because of their ethnicity?


----------



## Shusha

flacaltenn said:


> West Bank was LARGELY in jewish EXCLUDED area.. That's why it came under Jordanian "protection" in the 1st place.



What do you base this belief on?



> THEY are the entity entrusted with "mentoring and developing" Palestinian self-rule..



I agree with this.  They were.


----------



## Humanity

Shusha said:


> Blaming Israel for Gaza now, Coyote? Again, "settlement" or, more properly, "places where Jews live" are not an impediment to peace.



What sort of freaked out 'reality' do YOU live in?

"Illegal settlements" in territory that does NOT belong to Israel impedes the whole peace process...

"places where Jews live".... ??? Do you call Israel a "settlement"?


----------



## flacaltenn

Shusha said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> West Bank was LARGELY in jewish EXCLUDED area.. That's why it came under Jordanian "protection" in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base this belief on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEY are the entity entrusted with "mentoring and developing" Palestinian self-rule..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with this.  They were.
Click to expand...


By the time a hot war broke out -- the Brits were off powdering their wigs and didn't care about the Mandate anymore. That would be the significant maps produced by the 1949 Armistice lines. Essentially it took a war to sort out that "jewish exclusion zone" --- And "transjordan" got a bit larger..


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> So why can't they do that NOW?


Because Zionists are assholes.

Zionists think they're all that (and a bucket of chicken).

Here's what a* Zionist said* almost 100 years ago...

_*"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination."*_ - _Ahad Ha'am_​
And here we are, 100 years later and they're still doing the same thing.  You can see it in the statements of the Israeli government; you can see it in the statements of average Israeli's; and you can see it in the posts of this very forum.

Ahad Ha'am could've of been talking about *Roudy*, *Boston1*, *Phoney*, *Independent*, *Lipbush* and many of Israel's kiss-ass minions that populate this board.  That's how they talk! Ahad Ha'am called it and these people live it.

And the very few pro-Israeli supporters who don't talk that way, have to walk on eggshells for fear of the wrath of the crowd.  If you're Jewish and neutral on the Pals, you're a target!  Zionists will trash you like you were a Pal.  Recently, they even killed a guy, because they thought he was a Pal.

I don't mind them, because I know, in the end, I'm a bigger asshole than they are.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Because it does, and Palestinians are not Isreals indigenous population anymore than they are Americas.
> 
> But you forget that there are walls around other nations as well that are much more aggressive  than those around Palestine. Just as you forget that the Palestinians have been violent since 1916 when the Ottomans and LoN made no provisions for them in the surrender terms agreed. They sided with the losers and so had no rights to any land or to be given any land in the allocation made by the lands new sovereign rulers.


Why should anyone believe you, you can't even spell Israel, you dumbass little faggot!

It won't matter whether they cede or not, they ain't keeping that land.


----------



## Shusha

flacaltenn said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> West Bank was LARGELY in jewish EXCLUDED area.. That's why it came under Jordanian "protection" in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base this belief on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEY are the entity entrusted with "mentoring and developing" Palestinian self-rule..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with this.  They were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time a hot war broke out -- the Brits were off powdering their wigs and didn't care about the Mandate anymore. That would be the significant maps produced by the 1949 Armistice lines. Essentially it took a war to sort out that "jewish exclusion zone" --- And "transjordan" got a bit larger..
Click to expand...



You are smart enough to know that the 1949 Armistice lines did not create borders or a "Jewish exclusion zone".


----------



## Shusha

Humanity said:


> "Illegal settlements" in territory that does NOT belong to Israel impedes the whole peace process...



Only if you believe that Palestine must be Judenrein.  Do you believe that?  Do you believe that Israel should be emptied of all Arab Muslim Palestinians?  

And, at best, ALL of Palestine west of the river belongs to Israel and at worst, the territory and its boundaries are DISPUTED. There is no land which is definitively and exclusively an Arab Muslim Palestine.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gaza experience would not have happened if Israel hadn't built settlements on occupied territory.  That's part of the problem that can't be ignored - they build settlements on Occupied Territory and impedes efforts towards peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blaming Israel for Gaza now, Coyote?  Again, "settlement" or, more properly, "places where Jews live" are not an impediment to peace.
> 
> When, exactly, should Jewish people not have been allowed to purchase land and build in Gaza?  In antiquity?  In 1930 when a Jewish man bought land there?  In 1946?  In 1970?
> 
> How is it not problematic for you to exclude people from living in a place because of their ethnicity?
Click to expand...


I strongly disagree.  If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no.  However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.  The only one to blame for the anguish of the forceable removal of the "settlers" is the Israeli government itself who should not have allowed it.  When you look at the list of settlements removed from Gaza, all but one were built in the mid-70's and later.  Many were former military outposts handed over to civilians.  Were they purchased or, like many military property - simply confiscated?  The only one that seems different is
Kfar Darom built from land purchased in the 1930's, and I think those residents should have been allowed to stay.

It is not problematic for me because of the way you are choosing to frame it.  Once the status of the territories is legally settled - then it's a different situation and international law is not violated.

There have been many many new Israeli Jewish settlements.  How many new Arab settlements in Israel?


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Illegal settlements" in territory that does NOT belong to Israel impedes the whole peace process...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you believe that Palestine must be Judenrein.  Do you believe that?  Do you believe that Israel should be emptied of all Arab Muslim Palestinians?
> 
> And, at best, ALL of Palestine west of the river belongs to Israel and at worst, the territory and its boundaries are DISPUTED. There is no land which is definitively and exclusively an Arab Muslim Palestine.
Click to expand...


By international law, and in the eyes of the international community - it is considered occupied territory.  Israeli politicians are practicing their own brand of historical revisionism by attempting to label it "disputed".  They seem to be the only ones.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> I strongly disagree.  If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no.  However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.



There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel.  Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.   

While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here.  Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined.  That is morally wrong.  

Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation.  The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews.  And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree.  If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no.  However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel.  Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.
Click to expand...


Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).



> While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here.  Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined.  That is morally wrong.



It's not demonizing.  It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.



> Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation.  The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews.  And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.



Really now?  The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory.  That's what this is about.  It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations.  Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.


----------



## Indeependent

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree.  If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no.  However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel.  Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here.  Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined.  That is morally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not demonizing.  It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation.  The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews.  And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really now?  The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory.  That's what this is about.  It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations.  Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.
Click to expand...


If it's not anti-Semitism, why aren't you starting threads about all the crap taking place in the rest of the Middle East.
No, my dear, it IS anti-Semitism.


----------



## Coyote

Indeependent said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree.  If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no.  However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel.  Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here.  Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined.  That is morally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not demonizing.  It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation.  The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews.  And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really now?  The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory.  That's what this is about.  It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations.  Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's not anti-Semitism, why aren't you starting threads about all the crap taking place in the rest of the Middle East.
> No, my dear, it IS anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...


Why aren't you?


----------



## Indeependent

Coyote said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree.  If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no.  However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel.  Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here.  Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined.  That is morally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not demonizing.  It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation.  The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews.  And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really now?  The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory.  That's what this is about.  It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations.  Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's not anti-Semitism, why aren't you starting threads about all the crap taking place in the rest of the Middle East.
> No, my dear, it IS anti-Semitism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why aren't you?
Click to expand...


Because I'm spending all my time defending the only CIVILIZED nation of the Middle East...Israel.
Now why aren't you?


----------



## flacaltenn

Shusha said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> West Bank was LARGELY in jewish EXCLUDED area.. That's why it came under Jordanian "protection" in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base this belief on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEY are the entity entrusted with "mentoring and developing" Palestinian self-rule..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with this.  They were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time a hot war broke out -- the Brits were off powdering their wigs and didn't care about the Mandate anymore. That would be the significant maps produced by the 1949 Armistice lines. Essentially it took a war to sort out that "jewish exclusion zone" --- And "transjordan" got a bit larger..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are smart enough to know that the 1949 Armistice lines did not create borders or a "Jewish exclusion zone".
Click to expand...


Really? The maps I see that were agreed to absorbed the West Bank into transJordan. Designated as "arab land". 
If this is not the basis for Jordan ANNEXING that land -- what was???


----------



## flacaltenn

This whole issue of where did the ARAB "palestinian mandate" disappear to -- is really a cruel hoax of the Britons.
There was never a follow thru on any of the important mandates -- like nurturing a Palestinian state into existence.

Instead -- war broke out and Jordan was consolidated into a Kingdom with limited allegiance to "palestinians". And from there -- it was all decided by the recognized nation states in the region. Jordan OWES the palestinians some attention. And actually -- so does Egypt/Syria for that matter.

And AS PREDICTED -- the Palestinians themselves --- never got their act together. NOW 60 years later -- life moves on. No recognized peace delegation -- no due process. Some collection of interested parties STILL must come forward and do the heavy lifting for the Palestinians.

Which means -- BOTH sides are right here. Not ALL "palestinians" are gonna remain on the land because MANY are not gonna abide by a peace process. And many Israelis settling on West Bank land are not gonna be comfortable with the process either. There's a necessary people sorting required to create a viable sanctuary for Palestinians. I believe Jordan is WELL qualified to play a leading role in that process BECAUSE of the ugly history they had with the PLO and Black September..




.


----------



## Coyote

Indeependent said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree.  If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no.  However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel.  Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here.  Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined.  That is morally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not demonizing.  It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation.  The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews.  And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really now?  The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory.  That's what this is about.  It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations.  Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's not anti-Semitism, why aren't you starting threads about all the crap taking place in the rest of the Middle East.
> No, my dear, it IS anti-Semitism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm spending all my time defending the only CIVILIZED nation of the Middle East...Israel.
> Now why aren't you?
Click to expand...


I'll defend them when I feel they're right.


----------

