montelatici, et al,
Yeah, I love you know it alls.
Well of course any court whose decisions do not coincide with your extraordinary leaps of logic with respect to Israel's malfeasance must be corrupt.
Now to the point. Even in Article 49(6), uses both the words "deport" and "transfer" of its own population are used. The former addresses direct action by the Occupying Power and the latter addresses the simple movement of the Occupying Power's population (with the passive acquiescence) of the Occupying Power. Therefore it is not necessary that the Occupying Power actually organizes and moves population en masse (compared to individual transfers in 49.1). Art. 49(6) does not require the transfer of civilians to be forcible.
The war crime in Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) even more clearly does not require “actually organizing and moving population en masse,” because it prohibits both direct and indirect transfer. Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) thus prohibits a much broader range of actions than Art. 46(1). And, of course, a violation of Art. 8(2)(b)(viii), unlike a violation of Art. 49(6), gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.
For reference purposes, see below:
Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not
deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that
“the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.
ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute,
“[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.
So, please stop making a fool of yourself, I have forgotten more than you will learn about international law, Rocco.
(COMMENT)
I think I have given you the link to all these citations several time. In fact, in the last Posting, I directly copied information from several of these links.
The question remains, do you understand what the terminology actually means? I think not.
Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1
War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer
Elements of the Offense:
1. The perpetrator deported or transferred one or more persons to another State or to another location.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
Article 8 (2) (b) (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
Elements of the Offense:
1. The perpetrator:
(a) Transferred,44 directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
[/indent]
NOW!
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.
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.
The transferred portions differ between Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1 and Article 8 (2) (b) (viii) which has these three compelling components.
• Their own population
Yes, the Israeli settlers meet this criteria.
• To occupied territory
NO! Area "C" is a heretofore undefined Area under the full control of Israel. This includes security, planning and construction in accordance with the Oslo Accords.
• For political
and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.
NO!
While nothing a country does is without political baggage, it certainly is not racial. Israels population composition is much more diverse that either the West Ban or Gaza Strip.
Ethnic Groups
Jewish 74.8% (of which Israel-born 75.6%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 16.6%, Africa-born 4.9%, Asia-born 2.9%), non-Jewish 25.2% (mostly Arab) (2015 est.)
Religious Groups:
Jewish 74.8%, Muslim 17.6%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 4% (2015 est.)
It is not easy to articulate the logic, beyond that of "defensible borders." The Advisory treats the original Armistice Line as Sacrosanct. If it is not a border by default, then the status of the West Bank and many arguments put forth by the Arab Palestinians falls apart:
SOURCE: Frontpage
ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS: NOT JUST LEGAL, BUT NECESSARY
Refuting the leftist propaganda.
July 11, 2012 by
Steven Plaut
• It is in Israel’s acute national interest to prevent the West Bank from serving as a terrorist base, from which rockets, mortars and possibly weapons of mass destruction would be launched at Israel. Life in Israel would be impossible with the West Bank serving as a “Palestinian State,” basically a clone of Hamastan in Gaza. It is thus critical to do everything to prevent that from happening.
• Every accord or “deal” that provides for any sort of “Palestinian” state or sovereignty or entity operating outside Israeli control in the West Bank will produce the scenario of the previous point, mass terrorist aggression from “Palestine,” making life in Israel impossible. It does not matter what would be written in any accord or treaty.
• Israel would be prevented from taking serious action against terrorist aggression from this “Palestine” by international pressures and sanctions, and the Israeli Left would rally the world against Israeli “aggression” in all such cases.
• The only way effectively to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into a Hamastan terror base is by maintaining a significant Jewish population there. This effectively prevents international pressure from producing the conversion of the West Bank into the second Hamastan, and prevents endlessly appeasing and cowardly Israeli governments from capitulating to those pressures. (Imagine what Olmert would have done without the settlements.) Since most of the settlers are actually living in Jerusalem suburbs, their presence there also prevents any capitulations by Israel to pressures regarding relinquishing Jerusalem.
• While there are other moral and historic arguments why Israel and Jews have the right to live in the West Bank, the only REAL purpose of “settlements” is to prevent the emergence of any “Palestinian state.” No other rationalization or justification is needed. There are no other effective alternative ways to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into Hamastan.
It is my opinion that you just cannot read the Criminal Code and Statutes and think you understand what it says and what it means. In the case of Article 49(6) is so different from the other five clauses, as to be almost undefined. The ICJ Advisory also considered the Article VII Defense as completely out of the questing; as was the past history of criminal and terrorist behavior.
In any event, the highest law here is essential that --- Israel and Arab Palestine --- settle their territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers by peaceful means. The ICJ Advisory did not take into account the change in sovereignty when, while under Israeli effective control the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank. This effectively left the West Bank without a government, except for the Israelis.
Yes, I'm beginning to think that much of the International Laws that are often cited will not apply to the dispute. The Fourth Geneva Convention became effective in 1950, and None of the issues prior to mid-2002 actually fall under the Rome Statutes (21st Century Law). So the law you cite did not exist for the complaints at hand. Certainly NOT BEFORE 21 October 1950. The Article 49 did not exist at the time of the Nakba
(≈December 1947 to January 1949)..
Most Respectfully,
R
