> Displacement of civilian populations in occupied areas, and mass settlement of occupier civilian populations into the West Bank also needs to be up there.
There was a UN resolution in I think 1973 that deemed Israeli settlements in the West Bank "illegal" without stating what law was being transgressed. There is a law that governments can not move their populations into occupied territories (as the Germans did to Poland, and the law exists specifically in response to that) but no law against the population getting up and moving itself (as the Germans did to France) because international law applies to States, not Persons.
The term "no legal basis" is often thrown around referring to Israeli settlements but that is quite the red herring - anything is legal if there is no law forbidding it. And specifically in this case, actually, there in fact _is_ a law saying that anyone can build a house in the West Bank - the Ottoman law that nobody today has any legal jurisdiction to change.
A final argument against Israeli settlements is that Israel must "give back" the land to the Arabs. It is true that the Israelis occupy the West Bank, but the "give back" part is not. The last state to rule this area that was not an occupation was Great Britian, and even that only under UN Mandate that has since ended (remember, the Jordanian rule was occupation as well). And the ruler before that, the Ottoman Empire, no longer exists and the successor state (Turkey) is not interested in ruling the area (interesting how that might play out, actually).
I actually have been looking for some solid basis of denying the Jews the right to live in the West Bank for about a year and a half now, but I simply can not find such a base. Unless one considers the UN resolutions to be a solid base, but the basis of those resolutions is completely missing - they just seem to be decisions not based on any existing laws in the best case and willfully misinterpreted in the worst case. I'm reading them, and other related documents, in English because I don't speak Chinese, French, or Spanish and my Arabic and Russian are very poor.
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, last paragraph.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...
That is the same as a transfer under IHL.
Thank you.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/israeli-settlements-in-t...
Legal Framework, 11:
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, construction began for approximately 1,280 housing units in the first half of 2023 in Area C.
All of these Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, because they amount to the transfer by Israel of its population into an occupied territory.
For another, that document specifically mentions that the new buildings are in Area C, which has been recinded by the PA (for purpose of discussion, the details are far more complicated than that).
You asked for "something official", "[not] a blog post", "an official declaration".
I took up the challenge and found for you an official document of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights declaring " All of these Israeli settlements are illegal under international law".
> not a statement of what law is being broken.
From the linked document:
International human rights law and international humanitarian law apply concurrently in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of Gaza, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan. This includes the obligations contained in the international human rights treaties to which Israel is a State party,[4] as well as the Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907 (Hague Regulations) and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), which are binding upon Israel as the occupying Power under international humanitarian law
I have no stance on the matter.
You're welcome.
This has been pointed out multiple times now. I'll repeat it once more:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
▶Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, last paragraph.◀
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...
Out of context you are trying to use that quote to protect some land from people living on it. But if you read the entire article, the article clearly protects people from forced transfer - both the residents of the occupied territory and the citizens of the occupying power.
I added emphasis to the quote in the comment you're replying to since you missed it the first time.
And brought up yet again in peer replies while I've been asleep.
You've oft mentioned your repeated failure despite your best efforts to find out which laws are being violated here .. it may have something to do with your demonstrated habit of simply not reading closely.
As mentioned I myself have no stance here other than someone who took an interest in the question and sought a reference.
You appear to be either arguing in bad faith or someone troubled by a reading disorder.
> It's been repeatedly mentioned.
> And brought up yet again in peer replies while I've been asleep.
> You've oft mentioned your repeated failure despite your best efforts to find out which laws are being violated here .. it may have something to do with your demonstrated habit of simply not reading closely.
> As mentioned I myself have no stance here other than someone who took an interest in the question and sought a reference.
> You appear to be either arguing in bad faith or someone troubled by a reading disorder.
You should take up your case for why this is wrong with the lawyers who proof read the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
> In any case, repeating something does not make it correct.
Indeed. This entire thread is repleat with comments by yourself repeating the claim that you have debunked this interpretation.
> You might not have a stance, but you seem to be affected by the "it's repeated often, so it must be true" thought process - you even defend it.
Read more carefully - I have stated an official position in an official report and referenced it.
This is exactly how we reported such things in the mineral intelligence and energy intelligence companies we launched and later sold on, one to Standard and Poor (of the S&P index).
> The laws are actually quite clear.
Indeed.
You can easily see how the UN Human Rights lawyers read and applied the convention in the case where an occupying country failed to contain their citizens, and went further to support them.
That is the inaction and the action of the state at fault.
Though formally a non-governmental organization, it is funded by the Israeli government and leases lands from the Civil Administration to settle in the West Bank."
This is false.
West Bank settlement is funded by the Israeli government through the World Zionist Organization.
EDIT: downvoters, please understand, the above statement is true. The government of Israel supports settlement via the WZO, which has a division (named "Settlement Division") with the specific purpose of making settlement possible through whatever loopholes can be exploited.
The downvotes are an attempt to obfuscate this fact.
"One of the mechanisms used by the government to favor the Jewish local authorities in the West Bank, in comparison with local authorities inside Israel, is to channel funding through the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization. Although the entire budget of the Settlement Division comes from state funds, as a non-governmental body it is not subject to the rules applying to government ministries in Israel."
https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200205_land_g...
In the sense of Article 49 -- "transfer" obviously means any form of actively supported migration (not the coerced transfer) of these peoples into the OT.
In fact, in this specific case, there exists a pre-occupation law that specifically allows for it.
Which "law"? Something from the time of the Mandate?
> In the sense of Article 49 -- "transfer" obviously means any form of actively supported migration (not the coerced transfer) of these peoples into the OT.
> Which "law"? Something from the time of the Mandate?
It protects civilians in occupied territories. Not the supposed "rights" of persons from an Occupying country to settle into these territories under the protection of the Occupier's armed forces and civil administration (as is the current situation in the West Bank).
This is plainly obvious from the language of the GCIV; and it is the overwhelming consensus interpretation of legal scholars on in regard to this section.
This flies in the face of most of what I've heard/read on the subject. Israel is considered an occupying power (in WB and Gaza), and occupying powers in general aren't allowed to build settlements in occupied territories, no?
I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918. Isn't it considered Jordanian land, since they annexed it after 1948?
> This flies in the face of most of what I've heard/read on the subject. Israel is considered an occupying power (in WB and Gaza), and occupying powers in general aren't allowed to build settlements in occupied territories, no?
First I've heard of this interpretation of international law, interesting.
How does incentivizing civilians financially to move there fit into this? How does protecting civilians via the military fit into this?
> Wait, you're saying that because Israel isn't moving citizens into the WB, and it's being done voluntarily, then that makes it legal?
> How does incentivizing civilians financially to move there fit into this? How does protecting civilians via the military fit into this?
Do you know of a good place to read about this?
> There is no financial incentive, other than far more general financial considerations such as the expense of living in e.g. Tel Aviv
This seems false to me. I don't know many details, but it's pretty often discussed that there are different incentives. I can link you to a B'Tselem report about this, but I assume you dislike them as much as I do. So here's instead a CBS story about there being financial incentives to encourage settlers (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-govt-offers-incentives-...).
And if that doesn't work for you, here's a Hebrew-language source about why there's been a rise in home purchases in the WB: https://bizreef.co.il/%D7%94%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A7-%...
I'll quote a few relevant sentences (translated to English):
> For example, the government eased the rules for obtaining loans to purchase properties in the area. Additionally, it lowered the taxes on property purchases. Moreover, the government created incentives for entrepreneurs to build in the area.
> As for the military protecting civilians, does not every military protecting it's civilians?
Of course, but the specific accusation against settlers is that they go and build settlements, sometimes purposefully to disrupt Palestinian villages, and then the army has to go surround them and protect them, disrupting the villages more.
There have been numerous terrible incidents, since October 7th, of settlers using various forms of intimidation to drive out Palestinians, e.g. setting houses on fire, sometimes while being protected (but not stopped) by the IDF.
Establishment of settlements is also at least tacitly, and in some cases explicitly, supported by the government, which undercuts the claim that this is citizens acting solely of their own accord.
> None of this addresses the resettlement or removal of existing people, which is plainly a violation of article 49.
If you have specific incidents of displacement that you word like me to address, I'll do that. The recent Sheik Jarrah incident that made international headlines was a property dispute - in fact a terrific example if you want to discuss it as the Jordanian occupation displaced the Jewish family living there.
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Anybody interesting in this should look a bit further up in the thread for my response to the same comment by the same poster. I've continued the conversation only there.
There is much noise me about the settlements, but after a year and a half of researching this I come up empty searching for any solid arguments against them.
False. It directly funds organizations which promote settlement.
> Isn't it considered Jordanian land, since they annexed it after 1948?
Everything in this conflict is a war of words and changing one's interpretation of past events to suit current goals.
You don't need to bring the Ottoman empire back to reverse the expulsion of Palestinians from settlement areas.
> Indeed, it's not clear why the parent poster is talking about countries, when war crimes are crimes against people.
> I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918.
The Israeli occupation can not change the laws of the West Bank. An occupation can pass temporary orders, which are usually limited to (and often renewed after) three years.
Neither could the Jordanian occupation changed the laws of the West Bank, for the same reason.
The British Mandate was allowed to changed laws, and they did change many laws. However Ottoman property laws are very, very complicated and they decided that there was no reason to mess with it. So during the British Mandate the Ottoman property laws remained.
So the land in question has been through a UN mandate and two occupations (one still ongoing), without the property laws being changed. Those Ottoman laws still stand.
It is also a war crime, and doesn't even have the fig leaf of an active war to justify it.