Humanitarian Relocation?

[Shusha]

One might argue that there is peace in Jordan, as an example, because there is no conflict between two different cultures. And that this is directly a result of a mass deportation.

 

[Boston1]

You mean, the Arabs are guilty of operating an apartheid system ?

NO

YOU LIE

LMAO

I don't really care how they go about it but if they strictly follow the geneva conventions they have the weight of international law on their side.

 

[Shusha]

You mean, the Arabs are guilty of operating an apartheid system ?

NO

YOU LIE

LMAO

Haven't you heard? Ethnic cleansing is totally a-okay as long as its Jews being cleansed. Jews have no rights, remember?

 

[Coyote]

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

Well its progress. I don't see the problem in separating these two ( Israel and the Arab Muslims ) But I'd first give the established norms a chance, which brings us back to the strict application of the Geneva Conventions. With Jordan acting as the country of origin

I fail to see how 2 million dead marks "progress".

well you went from never works to seldom works so yeah. Progress.

What we know isn't working is leaving Arab Muslims loose to Israel. They just don't have the capacity to live in peace. So I can understand why people are finally realizing that segregation might just be the only option.

Certainly Israel isn't willing to weaken its position until the Arab Muslims prove over time they want peace. I think at this point we can all admit thats never going to happen.

My suggestion is that we first throw the UN out and then having taken over food distribution use a carrot and stick method offering the Arab Muslims all the food they want at designation stations designed to identify combatants from actual refugees.

Its quick and easy. Repatriate the combatants to their countries of Origin. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, wherever. No nation is required to maintain a hostile enemy force within its own borders.

Their country of origin is Palestine.

Lets assume thats true.

Lets also assume there was ever a place called palestine

The area of the mandate you prefer to call palestine was divided into two modern nations. Israel and Jordan. Jordan being Arab palestine and Israel being jewish palestine.

The Jordanians expelled all the Jews right about the time it joined the Arab League in its declaration of war against Israel.

Israel did not expel its Arab population. However the suggestion is being made now that perhaps this is the only solution to continues Arab racism and bigotry resulting in near daily violence against the Judaic population.

I don't see any reason why a piece of dirt 100' across the Jordan river is any different than one on the Israeli side. Whats the big complaint?

The two states already exist, its just the Arabs prefer to chip away at Israel until its indefensible.

Jordan is the modern day Arab Palestine. The country of Origin. Unless you want to go even further back in time at which point we'd be sending most of them back to Europe, Egypt, Syria and so on. Anywhere but Israel where they clearly have no intention of living peacefully as neighbors.

So...to cut it to the chase...you are pro-expulsion, kind of a two-wrongs makes a right sorta guy?

 

[Coyote]

One might argue that there is peace in Jordan, as an example, because there is no conflict between two different cultures. And that this is directly a result of a mass deportation.

Except...that that isn't exactly the case is it?

Jordan was peaceful PRIOR to mass deportation.

And

Later Palestinian refugees reside in refugee camps, sans rights, sans citizenship, sans work permits...yes?

 

[Coyote]

You mean, the Arabs are guilty of operating an apartheid system ?

NO

YOU LIE

LMAO

Haven't you heard? Ethnic cleansing is totally a-okay as long as its Jews being cleansed. Jews have no rights, remember?

Who claimed that?

 

[Boston1]

Well its progress. I don't see the problem in separating these two ( Israel and the Arab Muslims ) But I'd first give the established norms a chance, which brings us back to the strict application of the Geneva Conventions. With Jordan acting as the country of origin

I fail to see how 2 million dead marks "progress".

well you went from never works to seldom works so yeah. Progress.

What we know isn't working is leaving Arab Muslims loose to Israel. They just don't have the capacity to live in peace. So I can understand why people are finally realizing that segregation might just be the only option.

Certainly Israel isn't willing to weaken its position until the Arab Muslims prove over time they want peace. I think at this point we can all admit thats never going to happen.

My suggestion is that we first throw the UN out and then having taken over food distribution use a carrot and stick method offering the Arab Muslims all the food they want at designation stations designed to identify combatants from actual refugees.

Its quick and easy. Repatriate the combatants to their countries of Origin. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, wherever. No nation is required to maintain a hostile enemy force within its own borders.

Their country of origin is Palestine.

Lets assume thats true.

Lets also assume there was ever a place called palestine

The area of the mandate you prefer to call palestine was divided into two modern nations. Israel and Jordan. Jordan being Arab palestine and Israel being jewish palestine.

The Jordanians expelled all the Jews right about the time it joined the Arab League in its declaration of war against Israel.

Israel did not expel its Arab population. However the suggestion is being made now that perhaps this is the only solution to continues Arab racism and bigotry resulting in near daily violence against the Judaic population.

I don't see any reason why a piece of dirt 100' across the Jordan river is any different than one on the Israeli side. Whats the big complaint?

The two states already exist, its just the Arabs prefer to chip away at Israel until its indefensible.

Jordan is the modern day Arab Palestine. The country of Origin. Unless you want to go even further back in time at which point we'd be sending most of them back to Europe, Egypt, Syria and so on. Anywhere but Israel where they clearly have no intention of living peacefully as neighbors.

So...to cut it to the chase...you are pro-expulsion, kind of a two-wrongs makes a right sorta guy?

I'm all for the strict application of the Geneva Conventions with one caveat, If the UNWRA wants to consider the descendants of refugees also refugees, then we should also consider the descendants of those who didn't qualify as refugees also not qualifying as refugees.

I laid out my view in the "what if Israel quit playing the nice guy" thread.

I believe ALL those who either did not qualify at the time of their birth or those who forfeited their protected persons status as specified in the Geneva Conventions should be expelled from Israel and repatriated to their last countries of origin. Largely Jordan.

I'd not expel anyone who was either a legitimate refugee or those that were legitimate civilians

The concept of humanitarian relocations fails to consider the legal status of the individual. I believe the rights of the individual must be preserved

 

[Billo_Really]

PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW : International Criminal Code (Rome Statues): (Went into force on July 2002: 21st Century Law)

Article 7(1d) --- Crimes Against Humanity

• Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
​

Article 7(2d) --- Crimes Against Humanity

• "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

Article 8(2a)(vii) --- War Crimes

• Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
​

Article 8(2b)(viii) --- War Crimes

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
​

Article 49: Deportations, Transfers, and Evacuations, Fourth Geneva Convention

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
​

(COMMENT)

First, let's tackle the easy one. There are some (a few) UN Resolutions that have the forces of law. But most of the 100 Resolution are not violations because they are not binding. The claim is a gross exaggeration of the facts.

Second: (Remember: You framed your objection to: "transferring a population under occupation")

You have to be talking about some action that happened AFTER 1967. Because prior to 1967, there was no "occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)."

"Article 49 is "intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race." (COMMENTARY OF 1958)

"Unlawful deportation or transfers" were introduced among the grave breaches, defined in Article 147 [ Link ] of the Convention as calling for the most severe penal sanctions.
​

I do agree that it sounds like an absolute prohibition, but the exceptions include for reasons of the security of the protected persons or the imperative need in "military necessity."​

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (AKA: Nakba) is an allegation pertaining to the occurence when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the period December 1947 to January 1949.

• Prior to 15 May 1948, there was no State of Israel, the State of Israel could not have "occupied" any territory prior to that date.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

All the resolutions are designed to keep the peace. Breaking them, means you're not for peace. Israel has broken over 100 of them. And when you consider these resolutions were created specifically to prevent another Holocaust, breaking them means you are shitting on the memory of everyone who died in the Holocaust.

Regarding transfers, they are illegal regardless of motive.

ARTICLE 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​

 

[Shusha]

Haven't you heard? Ethnic cleansing is totally a-okay as long as its Jews being cleansed. Jews have no rights, remember?

Who claimed that?

Anyone who says that the "settlements" have to be emptied.

 

[Boston1]

PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW : International Criminal Code (Rome Statues): (Went into force on July 2002: 21st Century Law)

Article 7(1d) --- Crimes Against Humanity

• Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
​

Article 7(2d) --- Crimes Against Humanity

• "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

Article 8(2a)(vii) --- War Crimes

• Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
​

Article 8(2b)(viii) --- War Crimes

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
​

Article 49: Deportations, Transfers, and Evacuations, Fourth Geneva Convention

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
​

(COMMENT)

First, let's tackle the easy one. There are some (a few) UN Resolutions that have the forces of law. But most of the 100 Resolution are not violations because they are not binding. The claim is a gross exaggeration of the facts.

Second: (Remember: You framed your objection to: "transferring a population under occupation")

You have to be talking about some action that happened AFTER 1967. Because prior to 1967, there was no "occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)."

"Article 49 is "intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race." (COMMENTARY OF 1958)

"Unlawful deportation or transfers" were introduced among the grave breaches, defined in Article 147 [ Link ] of the Convention as calling for the most severe penal sanctions.
​

I do agree that it sounds like an absolute prohibition, but the exceptions include for reasons of the security of the protected persons or the imperative need in "military necessity."​

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (AKA: Nakba) is an allegation pertaining to the occurence when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the period December 1947 to January 1949.

• Prior to 15 May 1948, there was no State of Israel, the State of Israel could not have "occupied" any territory prior to that date.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

All the resolutions are designed to keep the peace. Breaking them, means you're not for peace. Israel has broken over 100 of them. And when you consider these resolutions were created specifically to prevent another Holocaust, breaking them means you are shitting on the memory of everyone who died in the Holocaust.

Regarding transfers, they are illegal regardless of motive.

ARTICLE 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​

Thats a pretty big claim. Can you prove that all resolutions are designed to keep the peace ? And what peace ? I'd suggest there isn't any peace and many of the resolutions are specifically biassed and NOT intended to keep peace but to favor one side over another

Humanitarian relocation is a specific policy which ignores individual rights. My personal take is that a strict application of the Geneva conventions would preserve the right of the individual while fairly and unbiasedly apply international law.

 

[Billo_Really]

Thats a pretty big claim. Can you prove that all resolutions are designed to keep the peace ? And what peace ? I'd suggest there isn't any peace and many of the resolutions are specifically biassed and NOT intended to keep peace but to favor one side over another

Humanitarian relocation is a specific policy which ignores individual rights. My personal take is that a strict application of the Geneva conventions would preserve the right of the individual while fairly and unbiasedly apply international law.

If you don't know what the UN Charter is about, why it was created (along with the GC and Rome Statutes), then you're not qualified to be in a conversation such as this.

Come back after you've done your homework.

 

[Billo_Really]

Anyone who says that the "settlements" have to be emptied.

Okay, have it your way.............they have to be "vacated".

The settlements are illegal and the biggest obstacles to peace in that area.

Allowing Israel to keep those settlements, is like saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Hollie]

Anyone who says that the "settlements" have to be emptied.

Okay, have it your way.............they have to be "vacated".

The settlements are illegal and the biggest obstacles to peace in that area.

Allowing Israel to keep those settlements, is like saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland and that ain't gonna happen.

That's just a simpleton's response. The biggest obstacle to peace relative to the Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists is islamism. Even a simpleton such as yourself can look at events across the Islamist Middle East and across the globe to see that Islamo's are slaughtering themselves and others for reasons that are directly linked to Islamist ideology.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Sometime, more than a surface scan is required. This is actually a bit more complicated than it appears. While I have to agree that there were instances when Article 49 might apply, it is not all encompassing as if is made to appear.

ARTICLE 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​

(COMMENT)

A little known resource are the ICRC "Commentaries" that were published during the period 1952 and 1959. These comments deal with questions regarding the implementation and application of international humanitarian law. The one that most directly impacts our discussion is the volume published in 1958.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]
-- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
--- EXCERPT --- ​

In order to protect the interests of the populations concerned, a number of safeguards are laid down with regard to evacuation, some of them in this paragraph and some in the next.

The first stipulation is that evacuation may only be ordered in two cases which are defined in great detail, namely when the safety of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. If therefore an area is in danger as a result of military operations or is liable to be subjected to intense bombing, the Occupying Power has the right and, subject to the provisions of Article 5 [ Link ] , the duty of evacuating it partially or wholly, by placing the inhabitants in places of refuge. The same applies when the presence of protected persons in an area hampers military operations. Evacuation is only permitted in such cases, however, when overriding military considerations make it imperative; if it is not imperative, evacuation ceases to be legitimate.
​

The 1949 phase "are prohibited, regardless of their motive" is a bit over the top; and a decade later the ICRC magnified the intent of Article 49. And Article must yield when other Customary Law, Rules and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) take precedence. Examples are:

23. Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
24. Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives​

There is very little question in my mind that there are some legitimate arguments and cases that will eventually arise from inconsistencies and incompatibilities with the intent of Article 27 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Hollie, Billo_Really, Shusha, et al,

The feud between the two sides (Israel 'v' Arab Palestinian) has been going on for so long, articulated differently by leaders on both sides, politically evolved naturally over time, has been historically written and rewritten by both sides, that neither side (the grass roots people) actually understand what all the issues are. In fact, most of the refugees that claiming the Right-to-Return (RoR) have never lived in what is now called Israel.

Anyone who says that the "settlements" have to be emptied.

Okay, have it your way.............they have to be "vacated".

The settlements are illegal and the biggest obstacles to peace in that area.

Allowing Israel to keep those settlements, is like saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland and that ain't gonna happen.

That's just a simpleton's response. The biggest obstacle to peace relative to the Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists is islamism. Even a simpleton such as yourself can look at events across the Islamist Middle East and across the globe to see that Islamo's are slaughtering themselves and others for reasons that are directly linked to Islamist ideology.

(COMMENT)

Before there can be any meaning progress forward, there must come the understanding that each genuinely want peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

The funny thing is Assafat invented palestinians ( IE Arab Muslims in the mandate area ) and now it looks like that designation is going to be the defining factor in this groups expulsion according to this particular concept for peace in the area.

Kinda ironic if you ask me, but whatever.

I don't personally agree that a general expulsion is in order. Only those who fail to meet the criteria offered in the Geneva Conventions as protected persons should be removed.

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

Other than Antarctica, where could you expel them that you could have a reasonable expectation that they would create no further threat to its neighbors? What reasonable assurance do you have that they will adopt relationships in a positive direction? What regional allies would underwrite any threat to peace and regional security? There is no expectation (because their is no past history; --- in fact it is quite the opposite) that the Arab League would ever step-up to the plate and attempted to contain the Hostile Arab Palestinians when they were involved in bombings, piracy, hijackings, the overthrow of adjacent Arab Nations, kidnapping and murders, rocket and mortar attacks.

Yes, I have to agree that the Arab Palestinians re-invented themselves. As a culture, the have a latent common bonds of their own personal image, and a replicated pattern that is passed on from generation to generation. The Arab Palestinian has these plebeian behaviors as survivors of virtual Israeli abuse. They have built nearly an entire society; albeit a failed society that only exists by the grace of international donors. And just as they turned against the Hashemite Kingdom over power and authority [the Fedayeen of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in conjunction with the radical Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)] and by armed force attempted to topple Jordanian King Hussein reign and seize control of the country, so it is that other see this trait, this respect, and this loyalty --- and gradually turn away. The think they are the only ones that have some special justification to take territory by force. The Palestinians demanded that they have a greater share of power and authority in Jordan, in an attempt to establish a Palestinian state (believing that the had the right to independence and sovereignty over a territory in the control of another). The Palestinians are characterized as those people victimized by the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the United Nations, etc - etc - etc --- in the Middle East and were denied some special rights that only they have; and that only they have the right to use threats of (intimidation) and the actual use of force.

The funny thing is Assafat invented palestinians ( IE Arab Muslims in the mandate area ) and now it looks like that designation is going to be the defining factor in this groups expulsion according to this particular concept for peace in the area.

Kinda ironic if you ask me, but whatever.

I don't personally agree that a general expulsion is in order. Only those who fail to meet the criteria offered in the Geneva Conventions as protected persons should be removed.

(COMMENT)

No matter how you attempt to administer justice, intervene fairly, or apply wisdom, the characteristic accumulated Arab Palestinian in the long history of past criminal behaviors is such that any autonomous territory is apportioned and controlled by the Palestinian would likely economically collapse and become another larger failed state --- ripe for the picking by radical Islamic Salafi jihadist militants that follows an Islamic fundamentalist.

Absent another alternative, they are right where they should be.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Haven't you heard? Ethnic cleansing is totally a-okay as long as its Jews being cleansed. Jews have no rights, remember?

Who claimed that?

Anyone who says that the "settlements" have to be emptied.

Yet there are plenty that say it's ok to expel Palestinians in order to build the settlements. Guess that ethnic cleansing is a-ok too.

 

[Shusha]

Anyone who says that the "settlements" have to be emptied.

Okay, have it your way.............they have to be "vacated".

The settlements are illegal and the biggest obstacles to peace in that area.

Allowing Israel to keep those settlements, is like saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland and that ain't gonna happen.

I'm not discussing whether or not Israel should be allowed to keep those "settlements". I'm discussing the hypocrisy of those who claim that forcibly relocating people is inhumane while demanding that Jews be forcibly relocated.

 

[Shusha]

Yet there are plenty that say it's ok to expel Palestinians in order to build the settlements. Guess that ethnic cleansing is a-ok too.

Well, on IP I have only seen one person argue for the expulsion of Palestinians and he has made it very clear that he means only the HOSTILE people who refuse to live at peace with the Jewish people in Israel and has never called for blanket ethnic cleansing.

This is stark contrast to the numerous people who call for the "settlements" to be emptied of Jews, including Abbas, which is ethnic cleansing -- the removal of people because of their ethnic background. (Yes, I know the common follow-up argument is that its Israeli nationals that are being removed, and not Jews, but who are you kidding? And removing people because they hold another nationality also qualifies as ethnic cleansing. And under a peace agreement, if they choose Palestinian citizenship, they should be allowed to stay.

But you have specifically said that forcible relocation is inhumane while also stating that the Jewish people must be removed from "Palestinian land". I believe you should rethink.



If your comment was meant out in the wider world, you will have to give me examples of where Palestinians are expelled in order to build settlements or where people think they should be expelled in order to build settlements. Because I do not believe that is either a policy of Israel's nor is it a widely held idea from the Israeli POV.

On the other hand, it appears to me to be quite widely held on the Palestinian side. All the Jews have to "go back where they came from". That has certainly been said a time or two on IP, by at least half a dozen posters. If I worked for it, I might be able to come up with a dozen who have said that very thing.