I addressed that. The Israeli government did not and does not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. The citizens move there of their own accord, which is permissible. In fact, in this specific case, there exists a pre-occupation law that specifically allows for it.
> The Israeli government did not and does not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. The citizens move there of their own accord
If you have something official that I could read, I would appreciate it. I have been researching this for quite some time. But a blog post, but official declaration or regulation.
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.
They discuss settlers moving of their own accord and then the later "legalizing" of such moves by the State of Israel.
For one thing, that is only documentation of Israeli building, not a statement of what law is being broken.
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
You'll notice that those documents just repeat "Illegal under international law" and mention some laws that are to be applied in the area. There is no mention of any specific law being broken. That is the problem. What specific law is being broken?
And I'll point out again that Israel (the Occupying Power) does not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
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.
>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 added emphasis to the quote in the comment you're replying to since you missed it the first time.
Yes, exactly, these laws protect people (from forcible transfer), not land (from people settling it) nor political entities (e.g. ambition to establish a state). I've read the documents in full, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention's 49th Article. It clearly protects people from forced transfer - both the residents of the occupied territory and the citizens of the occupying power. But it does not prevent people from moving of their own free will.
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.
And I've repeatedly debunked why the law in question is being applied incorrectly. In any case, repeating something does not make it correct.
> And brought up yet again in peer replies while I've been asleep.
I've been posting during waking hours in the land in question. I live here, I've been researching this for almost a year and a half. I understand that you live far away and sleep while events are unfolding here, but please don't try to burden me with that.
> 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.
I do not believe that attacking my reading ability actually promotes either one of us understanding.
> As mentioned I myself have no stance here other than someone who took an interest in the question and sought a reference.
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.
> You appear to be either arguing in bad faith or someone troubled by a reading disorder.
Neither. I have addressed the concerns presented towards me. The laws are actually quite clear. Try to read them, specifically the 49th article of the geneva convention that people like to throw around, without the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. You will see that these laws apply to states, not people. Furthermore they protect people, not land or political entities.
> And I've repeatedly debunked why the law in question is being applied incorrectly.
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.
"Since 1967, government-funded settlement projects in the West Bank are implemented by the "Settlement Division" of the World Zionist Organization.
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."
The citizens move there of their own accord, which is permissible
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.
No, it does not. Read the entire Article, I've read it. It protects civilians, it does not hinder their freedom to move. And it was specifically written in response to German transfer of civilians to Poland, while not interfering with German willful movement into occupied France.
> Which "law"? Something from the time of the Mandate?
No, the Brits did not touch the complicated Ottoman property laws. The Ottomans passed a law that anyone - Muslim, Jew, Arab, Druze, or other - could settle the land and they would then rightfully own it. This was to increase the tax yield of the very barren area, and it was wildly successful.
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.
> The Israeli government did not and does not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
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."
