Humanitarian Relocation?

[Phoenall]

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

The question I was posing is how do you know it wouldn't have been worse if there had been no population exchange?

You don't.

You only can know what DID happen - 2 million innocent civilians did.

There is a reason it's considered a crime.

Where did you get the figure of 2 million from, the best scenario puts the murders of between 10 and 50 million.

10 and 50 million? In the Partition of India and secession of Bangladesh? Estimates vary - upper estimate for the partition is approx 1 million. Upper estimate for the secession of Bangladesh is 3 million (that is considered highly inflated) - I went with an in the middle number of 2 million combined for the partition and later secession of Bangladesh since that was a result of the partition.

In the lead up to partition many millions of Indians were forcibly converted to islam, murdered or ran of their lands. The practise of Suti was brought back by the muslims as a terror tactic when they first raped all the women and then threw them onto fires after murdering their husbands, brothers and fathers. No different to what they had planned for the Jews in 1947, a pity they lost and ended up being shown as cowards.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

NO

I think you will find that the mass deportations were as a direct result of Palestinian violence and attempted land theft. The PLO decided that they wanted a nation of their own after they lost the west bank, so tried to murder the king of Jordan. The Palestinians from the west bank had elected to live in those camps as far back as 1949 even after Jordan granted them full citizenship, and the PLO used them as staging posts for their attacks on the Jordan authorities.

Do you want the next part of the Saga and where the PLO moved to in their reign of terror, and how they blamed the Jews for the outcome.............................

 

[Phoenall]

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.​

What a crock of shit, the resolutions on the most part were brought by nations intent on finishing the holocaust through the UN war machine. They failed in their endeavours and the Jews are still in Israel and still fighting against the final solution. You yourself advocate the mass murder of the Jews when you demand that Israel be nuked, making you a proponent of genocide and a war criminal.

By the way the resolutions failed as we have seen many holocausts since at the hands of muslims all over the world, and there is one taking place on Israel's doorstep.

 

[Coyote]

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

The question I was posing is how do you know it wouldn't have been worse if there had been no population exchange?

You don't.

You only can know what DID happen - 2 million innocent civilians did.

There is a reason it's considered a crime.

Where did you get the figure of 2 million from, the best scenario puts the murders of between 10 and 50 million.

10 and 50 million? In the Partition of India and secession of Bangladesh? Estimates vary - upper estimate for the partition is approx 1 million. Upper estimate for the secession of Bangladesh is 3 million (that is considered highly inflated) - I went with an in the middle number of 2 million combined for the partition and later secession of Bangladesh since that was a result of the partition.

In the lead up to partition many millions of Indians were forcibly converted to islam, murdered or ran of their lands. The practise of Suti was brought back by the muslims as a terror tactic when they first raped all the women and then threw them onto fires after murdering their husbands, brothers and fathers. No different to what they had planned for the Jews in 1947, a pity they lost and ended up being shown as cowards.

Millions of Muslims were killed by Hindus. Millions of Hindus were killed by Muslims. Then there were the Sikhs.

Sati, though illegal, was still in practice at the time.

Both Muslims and Hindus practiced widespread rape and slaughter.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So when will you be doing yours and looking at the UN charter in full, specially the parts that support the Jews and Israel. Then the Geneva conventions that do the same thing, and show that the blockade is legal and that the Palestinians should be tried for war crimes

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Read the UN charter and the Geneva conventions and you will see that the settlements' are perfectly legal. They are built on land bought by the Jews prior to 1948 to which they hold valid title. Talking of stealing the settlements from the Jews and giving them to the arab muslims would cause the biggest bloodbath in the area that mankind has ever seen.

Not allowing the Jews to keep their land legally acquired would start a ball rolling across the world that would result in you possibly losing your home because a migrant takes a fancy to it.


Try reading about the aftermath of the war of independence and what Jordan did with the Jewish land it stole to get round international laws.

 

[Boston1]

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

I really do enjoy your posts so don't take my response to be anything to critical.

Of course you raise some key questions and then constructively go on to offer some insights into the complexities involved.

However

The Geneva Conventions suggests that POWs shall be repatriated not more than one year after the secession of hostilities. It also defines who is a protected person and what actions constitute a forfeiture of that protected person status.

It does not lay responsibility on maintaining POWs indefinitely on the host nation, either of refugees ( assuming they have been vetted for status ) or of hostiles.

The defending nation has a right to expel hostiles.

Where they go isn't the problem of the defending nation. Who takes them isn't the responsibility of Israel. How they behave once they leave, isn't Israel's responsibility. Israel is not in any way legally responsible for maintaining a hostile force within its own territory.

Ergo none of your issues with expelling hostiles are the responsibility of Israel.

The IRC is the agency that is supposed to be caring for refugees. Except that the UN invented its own, the UNWRA which has subsequently done everything it can to perpetuate the situation.

The UNWRA should be removed from the situation. The Geneva Conventions articles concerning the treatment of civilians and combatants should be strictly adhered to. Israel should expel all Arab Muslim combatants. And the IRC should step up and do its job.

Yes there would be a relocation of a large number of people however. They'd each have had their condition examined on an individual basis if my suggestion is enacted. Which follows Geneva Convention regulations to the letter. Rather than just en mass expel the entire Arab Muslim population as the OP suggests.

 

[Coyote]

There are over 4 million Palestinians - WB/Jeruselum/Gaza. Are you saying that Israel would annex all those territories and sort through all of those people? I imagine every kid who threw a stone wold be labeled a combatant, families would be broken up or forced to flee together. All so Israel could confiscate their property.

Remeniscent of the Trail of Tears.

 

[Boston1]

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.

I sure am. Israel is entitled to everything west of the Jordan. This is clearly stated in the Mandate + Jordan Memorandum.

That includes the area of new settlements.

Not another inch should be relinquished to the hostile Arabs. But I don't think a general relocation is the answer.

Israel is above that.

The solution is to do exactly what should have been done in the first place. The moment Israel regained its rightful territory it should have vetted the Arab Muslim population on an individual basis and allowed those who had proven they are civilians or legitimate refugees to stay. ONLY expelling combatants and unprotected persons precisely as defined within the Geneva Conventions

 

[Boston1]

There are over 4 million Palestinians - WB/Jeruselum/Gaza. Are you saying that Israel would annex all those territories and sort through all of those people? I imagine every kid who threw a stone wold be labeled a combatant, families would be broken up or forced to flee together. All so Israel could confiscate their property.

Remeniscent of the Trail of Tears.

Trail of tears ? really ?

The Native American experience has ZERO parallels with that of the Arab Muslims.

Having some experience in that realm maybe I should start a thread on it but Humanitarian Relocation is on the one hand only a fantasy, and on the other a fantasy having nothing in common with the Native American experience.

Another grand false equivalence.

PS
I wouldn't support a humanitarian relocation.

It would violate international law and make Israel look bad.

I would however support the strict application of the Geneva Conventions and put an end to this nonsense pretty quick.

 

[Coyote]

There are over 4 million Palestinians - WB/Jeruselum/Gaza. Are you saying that Israel would annex all those territories and sort through all of those people? I imagine every kid who threw a stone wold be labeled a combatant, families would be broken up or forced to flee together. All so Israel could confiscate their property.

Remeniscent of the Trail of Tears.

Trail of tears ? really ?

The Native American experience has ZERO parallels with that of the Arab Muslims.

Having some experience in that realm maybe I should start a thread on it but Humanitarian Relocation is on the one hand only a fantasy, and on the other nothing like the Native American experience.

Another grand false equivalence.

PS
I wouldn't support a humanitarian relocation.

It would violate international law and make Israel look bad.

I would however support the strict application of the Geneva Conventions and put an end to this nonsense pretty quick.

I disagree, I think there are a lot of parallels, whether the ruling ideology was Zionism or Manifest Destiny.

The thing is - how are you going to sort through 4+ million people?

 

[Boston1]

The question I was posing is how do you know it wouldn't have been worse if there had been no population exchange?

You don't.

You only can know what DID happen - 2 million innocent civilians did.

There is a reason it's considered a crime.

Where did you get the figure of 2 million from, the best scenario puts the murders of between 10 and 50 million.

10 and 50 million? In the Partition of India and secession of Bangladesh? Estimates vary - upper estimate for the partition is approx 1 million. Upper estimate for the secession of Bangladesh is 3 million (that is considered highly inflated) - I went with an in the middle number of 2 million combined for the partition and later secession of Bangladesh since that was a result of the partition.

In the lead up to partition many millions of Indians were forcibly converted to islam, murdered or ran of their lands. The practise of Suti was brought back by the muslims as a terror tactic when they first raped all the women and then threw them onto fires after murdering their husbands, brothers and fathers. No different to what they had planned for the Jews in 1947, a pity they lost and ended up being shown as cowards.

Millions of Muslims were killed by Hindus. Millions of Hindus were killed by Muslims. Then there were the Sikhs.

Sati, though illegal, was still in practice at the time.

Both Muslims and Hindus practiced widespread rape and slaughter.

Nice bunch, whats that got to do with humanitarian relocation.

The deal is Israel has successfully outsmarted the UN and the world. All the Judaic people needed was a chance to collect unmolested in one place and its game on.

I for one am very proud to see a native peoples being so successful regardless of all the adversity.

And no, I wouldn't expel every Arab Muslim from Israel. I'd segregate then as specified by the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Coyote]

You don't.

You only can know what DID happen - 2 million innocent civilians did.

There is a reason it's considered a crime.

Where did you get the figure of 2 million from, the best scenario puts the murders of between 10 and 50 million.

10 and 50 million? In the Partition of India and secession of Bangladesh? Estimates vary - upper estimate for the partition is approx 1 million. Upper estimate for the secession of Bangladesh is 3 million (that is considered highly inflated) - I went with an in the middle number of 2 million combined for the partition and later secession of Bangladesh since that was a result of the partition.

In the lead up to partition many millions of Indians were forcibly converted to islam, murdered or ran of their lands. The practise of Suti was brought back by the muslims as a terror tactic when they first raped all the women and then threw them onto fires after murdering their husbands, brothers and fathers. No different to what they had planned for the Jews in 1947, a pity they lost and ended up being shown as cowards.

Millions of Muslims were killed by Hindus. Millions of Hindus were killed by Muslims. Then there were the Sikhs.

Sati, though illegal, was still in practice at the time.

Both Muslims and Hindus practiced widespread rape and slaughter.

Nice bunch, whats that got to do with humanitarian relocation.

The partitian of India involved a mass relocation of populations (what is now euphamistically called "humanitarian relocation").

The deal is Israel has successfully outsmarted the UN and the world. All the Judaic people needed was a chance to collect unmolested in one place and its game on.

I for one am very proud to see a native peoples being so successful regardless of all the adversity.

And no, I wouldn't expel every Arab Muslim from Israel. I'd segregate then as specified by the Geneva Conventions.

I'm just waiting to hear your plan on how you are going to segregate 4 plus million people. Do rock throwing children count as combatants?

And I wonder where you would send them since their country of origin is most likely right where they are unless they are recent immigrants.

 

[Weatherman2020]

My take would be to follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter. Its already in place, Its inarguable as the law governing war, and it would result in the same thing given that the children of combatants are not refugees.

I'm pretty sure firing thousands of missiles at cities with the intent to kill civilians is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

So what's the downside of violating the Geneva Conventions when the world ignores one of the most flagrant violations of human rights there is?

 

[Shusha]

IF relocating some people would create peace and end the conflict, do you think it should be done or no?

 

[Shusha]

And I'll answer my last question. Yes, if it would end the conflict and create peace I think the relocation of some people is an acceptable evil which could be tolerated for anticipated better results, especially if those relocated were compensated.

However, that was a very large IF. I don't think that separating Jewish Israelis from Arab Muslim Palestinians will end the conflict. (Witness Gaza).

 

[Boston1]

Where did you get the figure of 2 million from, the best scenario puts the murders of between 10 and 50 million.

10 and 50 million? In the Partition of India and secession of Bangladesh? Estimates vary - upper estimate for the partition is approx 1 million. Upper estimate for the secession of Bangladesh is 3 million (that is considered highly inflated) - I went with an in the middle number of 2 million combined for the partition and later secession of Bangladesh since that was a result of the partition.

In the lead up to partition many millions of Indians were forcibly converted to islam, murdered or ran of their lands. The practise of Suti was brought back by the muslims as a terror tactic when they first raped all the women and then threw them onto fires after murdering their husbands, brothers and fathers. No different to what they had planned for the Jews in 1947, a pity they lost and ended up being shown as cowards.

Millions of Muslims were killed by Hindus. Millions of Hindus were killed by Muslims. Then there were the Sikhs.

Sati, though illegal, was still in practice at the time.

Both Muslims and Hindus practiced widespread rape and slaughter.

Nice bunch, whats that got to do with humanitarian relocation.

The partitian of India involved a mass relocation of populations (what is now euphamistically called "humanitarian relocation").

The deal is Israel has successfully outsmarted the UN and the world. All the Judaic people needed was a chance to collect unmolested in one place and its game on.

I for one am very proud to see a native peoples being so successful regardless of all the adversity.

And no, I wouldn't expel every Arab Muslim from Israel. I'd segregate then as specified by the Geneva Conventions.

I'm just waiting to hear your plan on how you are going to segregate 4 plus million people. Do rock throwing children count as combatants?

And I wonder where you would send them since their country of origin is most likely right where they are unless they are recent immigrants.

You already heard my plan in the "what if Israel stopped playing the nice guy thread. It hasn't changed.

And no, Israel isn't responsible for where they go. Its only responsibility is to expel them. They are within their legal rights to segregate combatants from noncombatants and turn over the combatants to a neutral third party. In this case the UNWRA has proven itself to be in violation of neutrality and so the defacto organization is the IRC.

NOT MY PROBLEM is the term of the day.

While I wouldn't demand ALL Arab Muslims be expelled, I would certainly support the strict adherence to the applicable articles of the Geneva Convention.

Oh and of course children can be combatants. Which also places their parents in a very precarious position. Are they assisting a combatant. How responsible for the actions of their children are they ? Around here parents are completely responsible for the actions of their children. Also the Geneva Conventions make it clear that whenever possible families are to be kept together. Ergo if a child is a combatant and their parents are responsible for them, they could be held responsible for a terrorist act and expelled along with the children or even the entire household. Depends on if they encouraged rock throwing or are suspected of encouraging rock throwing.

The Geneva Conventions are beautifully detailed

 

[Boston1]

IF relocating some people would create peace and end the conflict, do you think it should be done or no?

An unabashed yes, however we need to be certain and relocate the right people. The violent ones.

 

[Boston1]

There are over 4 million Palestinians - WB/Jeruselum/Gaza. Are you saying that Israel would annex all those territories and sort through all of those people? I imagine every kid who threw a stone wold be labeled a combatant, families would be broken up or forced to flee together. All so Israel could confiscate their property.

Remeniscent of the Trail of Tears.

Trail of tears ? really ?

The Native American experience has ZERO parallels with that of the Arab Muslims.

Having some experience in that realm maybe I should start a thread on it but Humanitarian Relocation is on the one hand only a fantasy, and on the other nothing like the Native American experience.

Another grand false equivalence.

PS
I wouldn't support a humanitarian relocation.

It would violate international law and make Israel look bad.

I would however support the strict application of the Geneva Conventions and put an end to this nonsense pretty quick.

I disagree, I think there are a lot of parallels, whether the ruling ideology was Zionism or Manifest Destiny.

The thing is - how are you going to sort through 4+ million people?

Switch and bait. We're not talking about the US government policies vs the Israeli policies. You claimed similarities between the pali's and the Native Americans.

And I'm against a general humanitarian relocation. I'd stick it only to Arab Muslim combatants.

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate it.

• A note of Interest: The State of Palestine became a High Contracting Part on 2 April 2014.
• Question of Interest:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION
ARTICLE 2 [ Link ]

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
​

The term “occupied territory,” which is defined by Article 42 of the Hague Regulation (occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.) and is used in conjunction with the Fourth Geneva Convention was inspired by WWII occupation of Europe by German. Though it has become common place to call the "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip" as “occupied Palestinian territories (oPt),” there is no legal basis for other than the UN Security Council Resolution directing Israel "to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention." In 1999 the Convention of High Contracting Parties ruled that the Convention did apply in the oPt, including Jerusalem.

The problem with applying the Article 42 HR definition is that Gaza will claim it is autonomous, yet cry they are "occupied at the same time."

The Geneva Conventions suggests that POWs shall be repatriated not more than one year after the secession of hostilities. It also defines who is a protected person and what actions constitute a forfeiture of that protected person status.

It does not lay responsibility on maintaining POWs indefinitely on the host nation, either of refugees ( assuming they have been vetted for status ) or of hostiles.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this idea come from Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

POWs can be technically released at any time. In fact, penalties levied under Article 68 of the GCIV can be commuted and released at any time. Relative to the 1988 State of Palestine, they can be shoe-horned right in to their point of origin.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
BEGINING AND END OF APPLICATION
ARTICLE 6 [ Link ]

The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2 [ Link ] .
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 [ Link ] to 12, 27 [ Link ] , 29 [ Link ] to 34, 47 [ Link ] , 49 [ Link ] , 51 [ Link ] , 52 [ Link ] , 53 [ Link ] , 59 [ Link ] , 61 [ Link ] to 77, 143 [ Link ] .
Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit by the present Convention.
​

The problem here is that at no time was there at no time has military operations cease for one year.

The defending nation has a right to expel hostiles.

Where they go isn't the problem of the defending nation. Who takes them isn't the responsibility of Israel. How they behave once they leave, isn't Israel's responsibility. Israel is not in any way legally responsible for maintaining a hostile force within its own territory.

(COMMENT)

Oh yes. this is very true, to their point of origin. But Article 36, of the Fourth Geneva Convention still applies.

Ergo none of your issues with expelling hostiles are the responsibility of Israel.

The IRC is the agency that is supposed to be caring for refugees. Except that the UN invented its own, the UNWRA which has subsequently done everything it can to perpetuate the situation.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that the Mandate of General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV) ; but may be it would fall under "in collaboration with local governments the direct relief and works programmes as recommended by the Economic Survey Mission."

I'm not sure that the UNHRC and the UNRWA in the Middle/East Palestine region have not being coopted to gain access to surreptitiously and gradually, for the express purpose of assisting Arab Palestinians in order that they acquire as much international support and decisions on their side.

To insure that nonproductive Arab Palestinians remain eligible for benefits for as long as possible.

The UNWRA should be removed from the situation. The Geneva Conventions articles concerning the treatment of civilians and combatants should be strictly adhered to. Israel should expel all Arab Muslim combatants. And the IRC should step up and do its job.

Yes there would be a relocation of a large number of people however. They'd each have had their condition examined on an individual basis if my suggestion is enacted. Which follows Geneva Convention regulations to the letter. Rather than just en mass expel the entire Arab Muslim population as the OP suggests.

(COMMENT)

From the political and economic standpoint, where would you - practically speaking - expel the belligerent Hostile Arab Palestinians. No country, not even the Arab League countries would accept such transfers. These people are volatile and dangerous for a whole host of reasons; as well as an economic burden with no real prospect of making a productive contribution.

Most Respectfully,
R