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.