"Settlements" Are Not Illegal

[Tehon]

... People living in the West Bank are being occupied by Israel therefore Israel has to afford those people protections stipulated by the convention, including 49(6)...

So many things wrong with this:

1. Throwing out vague terms like "West Bank" has absolutely no legal weight. There is no defined and bordered territory called the "West Bank". It is a generalized term of convenience, not a legal status. If you want to discuss legal issues, please use correct legal terms.

2. Final borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State are to be the subject of permanent status negotiations and treaty.

3. The presence of people of a particular ethnic group, of itself, does not harm, reduce or in any way change the sovereignty of a territory.

4. There is no legal requirement for an Occupying Power to extend its obligation to protected persons to actively prevent voluntary migration of people of a particular ethnic group. In fact, such a prevention of voluntary migration based on ethnicity would be in contravention of IHL.

2. Final borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State are to be the subject of permanent status negotiations and treaty.

Until such a time as this occurs Israel is occupying the land and subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention especially as it pertains to the human rights issues of those whose land is being occupied, i.e. 49(6).


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

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It 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.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

 

[Tehon]

Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.

No, it is not prohibited. Evidence that it is not prohibited is found in ALL the other examples where an Occupying State permitted or encouraged its own civilian population to migrate into occupied territory, often stating expressly that the intent was to change the demography of the territory for its own gain. NEVER has 49(6) been applied in any of those circumstances. NEVER has 49(6) been considered to have been applicable in any those circumstances.

You are the one not looking objectively at the legal evidence. Look objectively at Indonesia and Timor. Look objectively at Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

OJ got away with murder, does that invalidate all laws prohibiting murder? Your argument is ridiculous, why do you show such callous disregard for human rights laws.

Oh boy.

1. I take it by your response that you are not willing to look objectively at ALL the instances of voluntary migration of people of a nationality or ethnicity into territory under dispute.

2. When unable to address a problem objectively, you appeal to emotion.

3. Your appeal to emotion includes a damning assessment of both my personality and my position, both contrary to the evidence of my posting history on this board.

So, since you seem to be ignorant of what my argument is, let me outline it for you:

1. BOTH the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people have a right to self-determination, self-government, a State. The rights of BOTH peoples are inherent and inalienable.

2. The solution to the problem is through a peace treaty which reflects the concerns and interests of both parties and is mutually agreed upon.

3. Ethnic cleansing, intentionally creating a homogeneous peoples in a given territory through various methods, is inherently morally incorrect and legally problematic. What that MEANS, in this context, is that BOTH Israel and (the potential) Palestine must include members of both populations and anything which actively prevents this should be discouraged. In no case in modern history is a territory required to be ethnically cleansed before sovereignty is established. In fact, in all cases, the inherent rights of the residents, including those who immigrated voluntarily, are taken into consideration and become integrated into the new sovereignty.

4. The sovereignty of each territory is not dependent on either territory being rid of the opposing group.

5. The law which you are quoting is demonstrably NOT a law. You are arguing that a law exists where in every other case it occurred it was not deemed to have been a law. The correct analogy in your example is where there are eight instances in the world where a man has cut his wife's hair and in no case was the law against murder brought up. Because cutting a woman's hair, while possibly a moral violation against the integrity of his wife, is not, in fact, illegal and not equivalent to murder.

And just to throw in my own appeal to emotion, I am having two other discussions on threads here today. One is against a poster who thinks I should be nuked and erased from history simply because I belong to a certain group which is inherently evil. The other is against a poster who claims he has nothing against the Jews but he has a big problem with Jews -- ooops, he meant to say Zionists, which are just, you know, Jews who want to live in their own homeland. Kinda like the Palestinians do.

In contrast, let me outline what I think your argument is. And please feel free to correct me.

In order to have a viable Palestinian State there can't be any Jews in it. Jews shouldn't be allowed to build on land which MIGHT one day become part of a Palestinian State. Because having Jews in a Palestinian State would be terrible and morally wrong. It is not legally permissible to have a State with more than one ethnic group. The mere presence of a peoples of a differing ethnic group is inherently de-stablizing. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to prevent people of a specific ethnic group from voluntarily migrating to new places. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to limit migration based on ethnicity.

Now correct me, or admit which of us has a "callous disregard for human rights".

In order to have a viable Palestinian State there can't be any Jews in it. Jews shouldn't be allowed to build on land which MIGHT one day become part of a Palestinian State. Because having Jews in a Palestinian State would be terrible and morally wrong. It is not legally permissible to have a State with more than one ethnic group. The mere presence of a peoples of a differing ethnic group is inherently de-stablizing. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to prevent people of a specific ethnic group from voluntarily migrating to new places. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to limit migration based on ethnicity.

I have no say in the decisions any future Palestinian State might make as to their immigration policies, and neither do you. All I know is that there exists a human rights code that says Israel is not permitted to inhabit the territory under its occupation and of which they are currently in violation. It is illegal to build settlements in occupied territory.

 

[Shusha]

2. Final borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State are to be the subject of permanent status negotiations and treaty.

Until such a time as this occurs Israel is occupying the land ....

What land, specifically is Israel "occupying"? Pick an actual place and tell me if Israel is occupying it or not? Then tell me what international treaty you are using to defend that choice.

Like, for example, I am a Jewish person. I have Canadian citizenship. I want to buy a house in, oh let's say, Ma'ale Adumim, am I permitted or not permitted according to you? Why?

 

[Shusha]

I have no say in the decisions any future Palestinian State might make as to their immigration policies, and neither do you.

Agreed. I am asking for your personal opinion about what is either (or both) morally and legally correct.

All I know is that there exists a human rights code that says Israel is not permitted to inhabit the territory under its occupation and of which they are currently in violation. It is illegal to build settlements in occupied territory.

Yes. Exactly. You are regurgitating what you "know" to be "true" based on widespread and generally accepted "knowledge" of "reality". I am challenging you to question whether the world is flat.

How do you know the world is flat? Well, EVERYONE says the world is flat! Its just common knowledge.

OR

I have researched the flatness of the world extensively. I have examined and explored every instance of the case for the world's flatness and come to my own conclusion.



I would also suggest you examine the wording of your post. You said: "Israel is not permitted..." and then you said "it is illegal to build settlements in occupied territory". You have exactly articulated the problem outlined in the OP and the article it brings up.

It is a point of absolute, irrefutable, legal fact that is is NOT illegal to build settlements in occupied territory where the migration of peoples is voluntary BUT Israel is not permitted to do so. THAT is the issue at hand. It is a blatant case of having DIFFERENT legal rules for Israel (read: Jews).

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.

No, it is not prohibited. Evidence that it is not prohibited is found in ALL the other examples where an Occupying State permitted or encouraged its own civilian population to migrate into occupied territory, often stating expressly that the intent was to change the demography of the territory for its own gain. NEVER has 49(6) been applied in any of those circumstances. NEVER has 49(6) been considered to have been applicable in any those circumstances.

You are the one not looking objectively at the legal evidence. Look objectively at Indonesia and Timor. Look objectively at Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

OJ got away with murder, does that invalidate all laws prohibiting murder? Your argument is ridiculous, why do you show such callous disregard for human rights laws.

Oh boy.

1. I take it by your response that you are not willing to look objectively at ALL the instances of voluntary migration of people of a nationality or ethnicity into territory under dispute.

2. When unable to address a problem objectively, you appeal to emotion.

3. Your appeal to emotion includes a damning assessment of both my personality and my position, both contrary to the evidence of my posting history on this board.

So, since you seem to be ignorant of what my argument is, let me outline it for you:

1. BOTH the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people have a right to self-determination, self-government, a State. The rights of BOTH peoples are inherent and inalienable.

2. The solution to the problem is through a peace treaty which reflects the concerns and interests of both parties and is mutually agreed upon.

3. Ethnic cleansing, intentionally creating a homogeneous peoples in a given territory through various methods, is inherently morally incorrect and legally problematic. What that MEANS, in this context, is that BOTH Israel and (the potential) Palestine must include members of both populations and anything which actively prevents this should be discouraged. In no case in modern history is a territory required to be ethnically cleansed before sovereignty is established. In fact, in all cases, the inherent rights of the residents, including those who immigrated voluntarily, are taken into consideration and become integrated into the new sovereignty.

4. The sovereignty of each territory is not dependent on either territory being rid of the opposing group.

5. The law which you are quoting is demonstrably NOT a law. You are arguing that a law exists where in every other case it occurred it was not deemed to have been a law. The correct analogy in your example is where there are eight instances in the world where a man has cut his wife's hair and in no case was the law against murder brought up. Because cutting a woman's hair, while possibly a moral violation against the integrity of his wife, is not, in fact, illegal and not equivalent to murder.

And just to throw in my own appeal to emotion, I am having two other discussions on threads here today. One is against a poster who thinks I should be nuked and erased from history simply because I belong to a certain group which is inherently evil. The other is against a poster who claims he has nothing against the Jews but he has a big problem with Jews -- ooops, he meant to say Zionists, which are just, you know, Jews who want to live in their own homeland. Kinda like the Palestinians do.

In contrast, let me outline what I think your argument is. And please feel free to correct me.

In order to have a viable Palestinian State there can't be any Jews in it. Jews shouldn't be allowed to build on land which MIGHT one day become part of a Palestinian State. Because having Jews in a Palestinian State would be terrible and morally wrong. It is not legally permissible to have a State with more than one ethnic group. The mere presence of a peoples of a differing ethnic group is inherently de-stablizing. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to prevent people of a specific ethnic group from voluntarily migrating to new places. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to limit migration based on ethnicity.

Now correct me, or admit which of us has a "callous disregard for human rights".

In order to have a viable Palestinian State there can't be any Jews in it. Jews shouldn't be allowed to build on land which MIGHT one day become part of a Palestinian State. Because having Jews in a Palestinian State would be terrible and morally wrong. It is not legally permissible to have a State with more than one ethnic group. The mere presence of a peoples of a differing ethnic group is inherently de-stablizing. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to prevent people of a specific ethnic group from voluntarily migrating to new places. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to limit migration based on ethnicity.

I have no say in the decisions any future Palestinian State might make as to their immigration policies, and neither do you. All I know is that there exists a human rights code that says Israel is not permitted to inhabit the territory under its occupation and of which they are currently in violation. It is illegal to build settlements in occupied territory.

You Dhimmis Are Doomed

The "Palestinians" are nomadic desert bandits who never had a country. After they cheered 9/11, no patriotic American should have the least bit of sympathy for their barbaric cause.

 

[Tehon]

I have no say in the decisions any future Palestinian State might make as to their immigration policies, and neither do you.

Agreed. I am asking for your personal opinion about what is either (or both) morally and legally correct.

All I know is that there exists a human rights code that says Israel is not permitted to inhabit the territory under its occupation and of which they are currently in violation. It is illegal to build settlements in occupied territory.

Yes. Exactly. You are regurgitating what you "know" to be "true" based on widespread and generally accepted "knowledge" of "reality". I am challenging you to question whether the world is flat.

How do you know the world is flat? Well, EVERYONE says the world is flat! Its just common knowledge.

OR

I have researched the flatness of the world extensively. I have examined and explored every instance of the case for the world's flatness and come to my own conclusion.



I would also suggest you examine the wording of your post. You said: "Israel is not permitted..." and then you said "it is illegal to build settlements in occupied territory". You have exactly articulated the problem outlined in the OP and the article it brings up.

It is a point of absolute, irrefutable, legal fact that is is NOT illegal to build settlements in occupied territory where the migration of peoples is voluntary BUT Israel is not permitted to do so. THAT is the issue at hand. It is a blatant case of having DIFFERENT legal rules for Israel (read: Jews).

It is a point of absolute, irrefutable, legal fact that is is NOT illegal to build settlements in occupied territory where the migration of peoples is voluntary BUT Israel is not permitted to do so. THAT is the issue at hand. It is a blatant case of having DIFFERENT legal rules for Israel (read: Jews).

If you had a case to make in refuting 49(6) I'm sure you would make it instead of making foolish requests of me to examine the curvature of the earth.

 

[Shusha]

Tehon

Let's ask another fun one. I'm an Israeli citizen of Palestinian origin. Am I permitted or not permitted, according to you, to move to Ma'ale Adumim? Why?

 

[Shusha]

If you had a case to make in refuting 49(6) I'm sure you would make it instead of making foolish requests of me to examine the curvature of the earth.

Ha! You still haven't read the article posted in the OP, have you?

Find me an instance where Morocco, as an example, is cited to have violated 49(6). Or perhaps where British citizens are cited to be violating 49(6) in Cyprus. Or any other instance of 49(6) being violated by the voluntary migration of peoples.

 

[Tehon]

If you had a case to make in refuting 49(6) I'm sure you would make it instead of making foolish requests of me to examine the curvature of the earth.

Ha! You still haven't read the article posted in the OP, have you?

Find me an instance where Morocco, as an example, is cited to have violated 49(6). Or perhaps where British citizens are cited to be violating 49(6) in Cyprus. Or any other instance of 49(6) being violated by the voluntary migration of peoples.

I have perused the article you posted and found the source paper and perused it. Nothing in either invalidates 49(6)

 

[Tehon]

Tehon

Let's ask another fun one. I'm an Israeli citizen of Palestinian origin. Am I permitted or not permitted, according to you, to move to Ma'ale Adumim? Why?

Assuming Ma'ale Adumim is on occupied land you would not be permitted to move there.

 

[Shusha]

I have perused the article you posted and found the source paper and perused it. Nothing in either invalidates 49(6)

No one is requesting that 49(6) be invalidated. We are asking that Israel be treated as all other nations are treated with respect to 49(6).

 

[Tehon]

I have perused the article you posted and found the source paper and perused it. Nothing in either invalidates 49(6)

No one is requesting that 49(6) be invalidated. We are asking that Israel be treated as all other nations are treated with respect to 49(6).

No one is requesting that 49(6) be invalidated.

Of course you are, you think that because it wasn't cited in other situations it is not a legitimate law, your entire OP is predicated on it.

 

[Shusha]

Of course you are, you think that because it wasn't cited in other situations it is not a legitimate law, your entire OP is predicated on it.

Not at all. Of course its legitimate law. But if it is not relevant law in other situations it should not be relevant law with respect to Israel (read: Jews).

 

[Tehon]

Of course you are, you think that because it wasn't cited in other situations it is not a legitimate law, your entire OP is predicated on it.

Not at all. Of course its legitimate law. But if it is not relevant law in other situations it should not be relevant law with respect to Israel (read: Jews).

Of course its legitimate law.

Then the thread title should read "Settlements" Are Illegal- but it's not fair

 

[Shusha]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

[Shusha]

Man in Morocco cuts wife's hair.

International response: "Not illegal"

Man in Cyprus cuts wife's hair.

International response: "Not illegal"

Man in Timor cuts wife's hair.

International response: "Not illegal"

Man in Israel cuts wife's hair.

International response: "Murderer!"

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard these arguments as well.

The Nobel Peace Prize 1994 - "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East:"

• Yasser Arafat
• Shimon Peres
• Yitzhak Rabin

"Following Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Arafat became the leader of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), an umbrella organization for Palestinian guerrilla groups. The groups resorted to terror to attract world attention, but it gradually became clear to Arafat that he would have to accept the state of Israel for the USA to be willing to mediate in the dispute. He approved the meeting of Palestinian negotiators with Israelis at secret negotiations in Oslo." SOURCE: Nobelprize.org
​

It is hard to deny that the Internatonal Community did not recognize the Oslo Accords as legitimate, especially when that recognition included the form of the Nobel Prize.

The SECRET negotiations between the PLO and the Israelis in Oslo (from which the nickname is derived), was universally recognized at the time

The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities

(COMMENT)

• Point #1: Pertaining to the issue of the "transfer." The State of Israel did not "transfer" any of its population to the West Bank and Area "C." The Israeli settlers are "voluntarily moving" to the West Bank. The Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) prohibits the "forcible" transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war.

• Point #2: There is a long tradition of legal confiscation and forfeitures when the government (any government) seizes property used in unlawful practices, and other reasons. Nothing in the Oslo Accords suggests that some special authority was extended.

• Point #3: I do not believe that anyone postulated that the Oslo Accords even addressed the issue of property forfeitures and seizures beyond that authorized by law (military necessity); and of course, such property as may have been used for unlawful purposes.

​

To say the Oslo Accords are "ILLEGAL" is to say that the treaties between warring parties is "illegal" since the victory in the land usually occupies that land.

Most Respectfully,
R

Treaties and agreements are not illegal, per se. But if an agreement violates the rights of people the short answer is that it is illegal.

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

Yes... It would help if you knew what that meant.

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

[(COMMENT)

• No transfer by order of the Government.
• No deportation by order of the Government.
​

"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 7(2d), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

(QUESTION)

What Israeli Citizens in the West Bank are you claiming meet this criteria?

Most Respectfully
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Interesting...

Treaties and agreements are not illegal, per se. But if an agreement violates the rights of people the short answer is that it is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

• What particular "Rights of the People" were violated?
• What is the source of these "Rights."

(COMMENT)

So it is your contention that no matter what form of agreement, treaty, or accord takes, if Israel had effective control over the West Bank, any agreement, treaty, or accord is invalid and unlawful.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Interesting...

Treaties and agreements are not illegal, per se. But if an agreement violates the rights of people the short answer is that it is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

• What particular "Rights of the People" were violated?
• What is the source of these "Rights."

(COMMENT)

So it is your contention that no matter what form of agreement, treaty, or accord takes, if Israel had effective control over the West Bank, any agreement, treaty, or accord is invalid and unlawful.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is not the issue. It is that Israel violates virtually all of the rules of occupation. And then Israel says that the "Palestinians" authorized them to do it.