"Settlements" Are Not Illegal

[Phoenall]

Tehon, et al,

I just say your posting. We are both looking at the very same commentary.

Yes sir I believe you are ignoring paragraph 6, which pertains to an occupying power transferring its own population into the occupied territory. The commentary that you promote is a commentary on paragraph 1 which pertains to the removal of people from the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

We disagree with its application. Luckily, the Criminal Code clarifies it.

Israel, as the Occupying Power, cannot police up a segment of its population and transfer (or compel them forcibly) to the West Bank.

Israel may not arrest, detail and deport (forcefully) any segment of its population to the West Bank.

The Israelis may, under the Oslo Accords, allow its citizens to transit from sovereignty Israeli territory to AREA "C" territory; where Israel has (by agreement with the PA) full authority.​

Most Respectfully,
R

We are not talking here about transiting sir, we are talking about building settlements and paragraph 6 is quite clear in that it is deemed an unacceptable practice.

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

You appear to be attempting to obfuscate by conflating two separate and independent paragraphs.

You forget two small problems in your haste to attack the Jews The first is that there is no deportation or forced transfer of Israelis, but a unilateral move to land under International law. Namely the Oslo accords " The Israelis may, under the Oslo Accords, allow its citizens to transit from sovereignty Israeli territory to AREA "C" territory; where Israel has (by agreement with the PA) full authority."

Secondly that the land is in fact Jewish owned and was stolen by force in 1949 by palestinian/Jordanian troops and annexed illegally. You can twist the words anyway you want it will not alter the facts or the truth, the arab muslims have no legal claim to that land which is why it was handed to Israel under the Oslo accords

 

[Phoenall]

Tehon, et al,

I think you have this twisted-up.

Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Would not the "violation of a criminal statute" be defined as a crime?

(COMMENT)

In think that is what I said. We are talking about the International Criminal Statutes for the 2002 International Criminal Court.

I would think that the definition of "illegal" would constitute the violation of a law, international or otherwise, which I believe the Geneva Convention is an example of.

(COMMENT)

Well, the GCIV is an example of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It is not criminal law. However, some of the prohibitions that are articulated within the GCIV, are also articulated within the Rome Statutes, (International Criminal Law).

There is not just one system that completely describes the entire system of Laws. There is Customary and IHL and Criminal. And then there are non-binding pronouncements.

I'll use something you might be familiar with to illustrate the difference:
View attachment 90489 ​

The creators attempted to dovetail them together. For instance, General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) spells out the criteria for "Aggression." However, the General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) which originally defined the Act of Aggression was non-binding in 1974 when it was created. However, in 2010 (Inserted by resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010), when the Rome Statute Article 8 - Crime of Aggression went into force, Article 8 gave legal importance to the non-binding resolution; incorporated by reference:

Excerpt Article 8 (ICC)
For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
​

Prior to 2010, the Act of Aggression was actually a violation of Treaty Law, The UN Charter, Article 2(4).

While it is simpler for people outside the Law Enforcement and Legal/Judicial to think that anything against the law is a crime, it is not always the case.

I hope this explains it a little better.

Most Respectfully,
R

While it is simpler for people outside the Law Enforcement and Legal/Judicial to think that anything against the law is a crime, it is not always the case.

I agree, but is anything contrary to law illegal?

Only in the country that enacts that particular law, and only if you are caught

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tehon, et al,

I just say your posting. We are both looking at the very same commentary.

Yes sir I believe you are ignoring paragraph 6, which pertains to an occupying power transferring its own population into the occupied territory. The commentary that you promote is a commentary on paragraph 1 which pertains to the removal of people from the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

We disagree with its application. Luckily, the Criminal Code clarifies it.

Israel, as the Occupying Power, cannot police up a segment of its population and transfer (or compel them forcibly) to the West Bank.

Israel may not arrest, detail and deport (forcefully) any segment of its population to the West Bank.

The Israelis may, under the Oslo Accords, allow its citizens to transit from sovereignty Israeli territory to AREA "C" territory; where Israel has (by agreement with the PA) full authority.​

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not as simple as many think. International law is evolutionary. Similar principles can come in from different places. This creates a web of laws that originated from different circumstances but may come to the same or similar place.

Settlements can violate other legal principles: The basic rights including territorial integrity, annexation of occupied land, non aggression, acquiring territory by force, and expropriation of property.

Article 49 is not the definitive criterion.

 

[Phoenall]

Tehon, et al,

I just say your posting. We are both looking at the very same commentary.

Yes sir I believe you are ignoring paragraph 6, which pertains to an occupying power transferring its own population into the occupied territory. The commentary that you promote is a commentary on paragraph 1 which pertains to the removal of people from the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

We disagree with its application. Luckily, the Criminal Code clarifies it.

Israel, as the Occupying Power, cannot police up a segment of its population and transfer (or compel them forcibly) to the West Bank.

Israel may not arrest, detail and deport (forcefully) any segment of its population to the West Bank.

The Israelis may, under the Oslo Accords, allow its citizens to transit from sovereignty Israeli territory to AREA "C" territory; where Israel has (by agreement with the PA) full authority.​

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not as simple as many think. International law is evolutionary. Similar principles can come in from different places. This creates a web of laws that originated from different circumstances but may come to the same or similar place.

Settlements can violate other legal principles: The basic rights including territorial integrity, annexation of occupied land, non aggression, acquiring territory by force, and expropriation of property.

Article 49 is not the definitive criterion.

Is the fact that the land was Jewish and still on the land registry as being Jewish not enough for you. The palestinians of Jordan and elswhere forcibly evicted the Jews from their homes in 1949 and took the property as theirs. This was ILLEGAL at the time and the UN made alterations to its charter to support the Jews if ever they reclaimed these lands. So the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are in breach of these rights and should be made to pay the price for their illegallity.


Or will you deny the Jews the full weight of international laws that you try and impose for the benefit of the illegal arab muslim immigrants claiming the land today.

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

Yours is a different view; but just as valid. I will admit I find you seem to have a stronger position than I.

While it is simpler for people outside the Law Enforcement and Legal/Judicial to think that anything against the law is a crime, it is not always the case.

I agree, but is anything contrary to law illegal?

(COMMENT)

Initially, I tend to think that when we say "illegal" in the context that we advance here in this discussion, we make some implications. The term and its meaning are not quite as simple as you might think.


What is ILLEGAL?
Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

Law Dictionary: What is ILLEGAL? definition of ILLEGAL (Black's Law Dictionary)
Not authorized by law; Illicit ; unlawful; contrary to law. Sometimes this term means merely that which lacks authority of or support from law; but more frequently it imports a violation. Etymologicaily, the word seems to convey the negative meaning only. But in ordinary use it has a severer, stronger signification; the idea of censure or condemnation for breaking law is usually presented. But the law implied in illegal is not necessarily an express statute. Tilings are called "illegal" for a violation of common-law principles. And the term does not imply that the act spoken of is immoral or wicked; it implies only a breach of the law.
​

Tilings are apparent surface violations. As we use it here in these discussion, applicable to international law, it is slightly different in interpretation.

Remember, using the simple definition, the Geneva Convention would not apple to the refugee action that occurred before November 1949. Thus it would have not been contrary to law. Similarly, the Arab Palestinians gave full jurisdiction to Area "C", which makes the settlements in compliance under that agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:

International Illegality

Four conditions are required to be met to constitute an international illegal act:

The breach must:

(1) be against the will of the complainant

(2) not be justifiable as, for instance, by the exercise of the right of self-defense

(3) be attributable or imputable to a subject of international law

(4) be voluntary​

Summarizing, an international illegal act may then be defined as a voluntary unjustifiable act or failure to act which is not condoned and is attributable to a subject of international law.​

Jus Aequum vs. Jus Strictum

Jus aequum and jus strictum are polar opposites in the principles of legal jurisprudence as are teleology and deontology in moral philosophy. The principle of jus strictum calls for the strict and literal interpretation of legal rules. From an historical perspective, this was the basis of international law. However, over the centuries, treaty practice has allowed interpretation and application be done in a reasonable and equitable manner, or jus aequum.

...clauses stipulating good faith or equitable treatment have gradually come to be regarded as implicit in international transactions of a consensual character. Thus, today it is true to say that in international treaty law and that part of international customary law which has its origins in treaties, jus strictum has been largely transformed into jus aequum.​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that the law evolves as fast as conditions.

It is not as simple as many think. International law is evolutionary. Similar principles can come in from different places. This creates a web of laws that originated from different circumstances but may come to the same or similar place.

Settlements can violate other legal principles: The basic rights including territorial integrity, annexation of occupied land, non aggression, acquiring territory by force, and expropriation of property.

Article 49 is not the definitive criterion.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the Rome Statues, this is a critical point to be considered.

• PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Article 22 Nullum crimen sine lege Page 18, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.
​

Remember that many of these treaties, conventions and resolutions were formulated after the allegation of the crime. Such laws cannot be applied retroactively.

Article 24 Non-retroactivity ratione personae

1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.
2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

What about the rest of my post?

Irrelevant in law.

 

[Shusha]

We are not talking here about transiting sir, we are talking about building settlements and paragraph 6 is quite clear in that it is deemed an unacceptable practice.

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

Did you read the paper included in the OP? This law does not exist when examining other nations or conflicts. Not that it is ignored -- but that it does not exist.

49(6) prevents the forcible transportation of a population. That is how it is understood everywhere in the world, in all cases. There is no international law which requires a nation in conflict or in dispute over territory or even an occupying power to prevent the voluntary migration of people of a particular ethnic group to a particular territory or to reverse that migration. Such a law simply does not exist. There are MANY cases of equivalence and in NO case is the "occupying power" required to prevent such a migration. There are instances where the occupying power even provides significant incentive to the population to migrate. And in NO case is this considered a contravention of international law.

It is a case of literally making up a non-existent law to apply to only one place and one people.

 

[Shusha]

It is not as simple as many think. International law is evolutionary.

But a law must not be brought into existence, interpreted and/or applied inconsistently depending on who the actors are. It must exist, be interpreted and be applied equally to all.

 

[Tehon]

We are not talking here about transiting sir, we are talking about building settlements and paragraph 6 is quite clear in that it is deemed an unacceptable practice.

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

Did you read the paper included in the OP? This law does not exist when examining other nations or conflicts. Not that it is ignored -- but that it does not exist.

49(6) prevents the forcible transportation of a population. That is how it is understood everywhere in the world, in all cases. There is no international law which requires a nation in conflict or in dispute over territory or even an occupying power to prevent the voluntary migration of people of a particular ethnic group to a particular territory or to reverse that migration. Such a law simply does not exist. There are MANY cases of equivalence and in NO case is the "occupying power" required to prevent such a migration. There are instances where the occupying power even provides significant incentive to the population to migrate. And in NO case is this considered a contravention of international law.

It is a case of literally making up a non-existent law to apply to only one place and one people.

Article 49 paragraph 6:

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

How can you misconstrue it or deny its existence?

 

[Shusha]

Yeah, RoccoR , it IS a lost cause. Sigh.

 

[Tehon]

Yeah, RoccoR , it IS a lost cause. Sigh.

Your cause is an attempt to legitimize the oppression of the Palestinian people. and your cause.

 

[Shusha]

Article 49 paragraph 6:

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

How can you misconstrue it or deny its existence?

Israel neither deports nor transfers parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Where territory is in dispute or there is an occupying power (keeping mind it is my opinion that Israel is NOT an occupying power in Areas C or in Gaza) -- it is not ILLEGAL to actively entice and provide incentives for civilian populations to voluntarily migrate. It happens in many places in the world and it has never been found to be in contravention of international law.

From the paper (which I highly recommend you read):

To better understand what Art. 49(6) does in fact demand, this Article closely examines its application in all other cases in which it could apply. Many of the settlement enterprises studied in this Article have never been discussed or documented. All of these situations involved the movement of settlers into the occupied territory, in numbers ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands. Indeed, perhaps every prolonged occupation of contiguous habitable territory has resulted in significant settlement activity.

Clear patterns emerge from this systematic study of state practice. Strikingly, the state practice paints a picture that is significantly inconsistent with the prior conventional wisdom concerning Art. 49(6). First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.

The examples given in the paper are East Timor, Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara, Syria/Lebanon, Vietnam/Cambodia, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Russia/Georgia/Ukraine and The Baltic States.

 

[Shusha]

Yeah, RoccoR , it IS a lost cause. Sigh.

Your cause is an attempt to legitimize the oppression of the Palestinian people. and your cause.

So, is it oppression to have a civilian population which is non-homogenous? Or is the opposite true oppression?

 

[Shusha]

Are the Jewish people being oppressed because Arab Palestinian Muslims live among them in Israel's sovereign territory? How would you propose to end that oppression?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

Israel Is Our Shield

The Paleonasties don't have settlements; they have missile launching pads.

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

I'm not sure you read the definition of "depart" and "transfer" ---

Article 49 paragraph 6:

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

How can you misconstrue it or deny its existence?

(COMMENT)

Deport is something on the order of expelling (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime. So if you are the Israeli Government, and you are deporting people from Israel to the West Bank, who are you departing to the West Bank?

Article 7 Crimes against humanity: (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; "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;

(viii) 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;

The Rome Statutes did not go into force until 2002. Israel is not a party to the Rome Statutes of the ICC.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, et al,

I'm not sure you read the definition of "depart" and "transfer" ---

Article 49 paragraph 6:

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

How can you misconstrue it or deny its existence?

(COMMENT)

Deport is something on the order of expelling (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime. So if you are the Israeli Government, and you are deporting people from Israel to the West Bank, who are you departing to the West Bank?

Article 7 Crimes against humanity: (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; "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;

(viii) 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;

The Rome Statutes did not go into force until 2002. Israel is not a party to the Rome Statutes of the ICC.

Most Respectfully,
R

So if you are the Israeli Government, and you are deporting people from Israel to the West Bank, who are you departing to the West Bank?

Whoever. To deport is to expel from one's country, there is no requirement that it has to be a foreigner.

It was you who told me that it was imperative to read the commentary when examining the law. Well here it is and it explains the reason for the law. Fairly cut and dry as to the intent.



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.
ICRC service

 

[Phoenall]

We are not talking here about transiting sir, we are talking about building settlements and paragraph 6 is quite clear in that it is deemed an unacceptable practice.

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

Did you read the paper included in the OP? This law does not exist when examining other nations or conflicts. Not that it is ignored -- but that it does not exist.

49(6) prevents the forcible transportation of a population. That is how it is understood everywhere in the world, in all cases. There is no international law which requires a nation in conflict or in dispute over territory or even an occupying power to prevent the voluntary migration of people of a particular ethnic group to a particular territory or to reverse that migration. Such a law simply does not exist. There are MANY cases of equivalence and in NO case is the "occupying power" required to prevent such a migration. There are instances where the occupying power even provides significant incentive to the population to migrate. And in NO case is this considered a contravention of international law.

It is a case of literally making up a non-existent law to apply to only one place and one people.

Article 49 paragraph 6:

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

How can you misconstrue it or deny its existence?

Well this is what you are doing as under no circumstances has Israel deported or transfered any part of its civilian population into area "C". You are reading into the Geneva convention something that is not there in the first place, and the evidence of this being so is the cherry picked tiny part you submit because the full transcript would spell out the reality.

 

[Phoenall]

Tehon, et al,

I'm not sure you read the definition of "depart" and "transfer" ---

Article 49 paragraph 6:

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

How can you misconstrue it or deny its existence?

(COMMENT)

Deport is something on the order of expelling (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime. So if you are the Israeli Government, and you are deporting people from Israel to the West Bank, who are you departing to the West Bank?

Article 7 Crimes against humanity: (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; "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;

(viii) 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;

The Rome Statutes did not go into force until 2002. Israel is not a party to the Rome Statutes of the ICC.

Most Respectfully,
R

So if you are the Israeli Government, and you are deporting people from Israel to the West Bank, who are you departing to the West Bank?

Whoever. To deport is to expel from one's country, there is no requirement that it has to be a foreigner.

It was you who told me that it was imperative to read the commentary when examining the law. Well here it is and it explains the reason for the law. Fairly cut and dry as to the intent.



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.
ICRC service

So no comment on the arab muslims doing just that in 1949 when they forcibly deported the Jews out of the west bank and imported their own into the vaccuum left. Proving that you are not really interested in fair play, just in attacking the Jews and hounding them for your p[aymasters.