Settlers uproot 30 trees near Yatta

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=681536

HEBRON (Ma'an) -- Israeli settlers uprooted 30 olive trees on Friday southeast of Yatta near Hebron, a local activist group said.

Spokesman for the local resistance committees Nidal al-Haddar told Ma'an that settlers from the Israeli settlement of Susiya raided the area and uprooted 30 trees belonging to the Shatat family in the village of Khirbet Zanuta.

Khirbet Zanuta is located in the South Hebron Hills, known locally as Masafer Yatta, an area that lies almost entirely in Area C, the 62 percent of the West Bank under full Israeli civil and security control since the 1993 Oslo Accords.

In the 1980s, Israeli settlers began moving into the area of Susiya and an archaeological park was established on land expropriated from the local Palestinian village, the original Susiya.

[TexasProgresive]

1. This sounds like the range wars in western US

Cut fences, stampede live stock to death and terrorize families. An age old strategy to grab land from the rightful owners.

[shira]

2. Here's one demostrably false lie from the Ma'an article:

More than 500,000 Israeli settlers live in settlements across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in contravention of international law.

Which law makes settlements or settlers illegal?

No such law exists. An attempt to make it law was vetoed in 2011:

U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. We will know you by your works, Shira.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49, is fairly clear on this subject; no matter how hard Israel, and it's boot lickers, wish to whine about how they don't have to follow the law.


Article 49 - Population transfer [hide]

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

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

So Shira, it is not Ma'an news who is lying. It is you who are being completely and unequivocally untruthful to the point of deceit to misguide any DUer that happens to read your unflushed toilet.


On edit, since Israel has been a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention since 1951, predating any colonization of Palestinian territory, they can't feign ignorance of this binding document...unlike some who seemingly lie in Israel's name.

[Fozzledick]

13. Reading comprehension, what is it?

No forcible transfers or deportations are involved, you just like making shit up and insulting people.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

23. "Reading comprehension, what is it?" Not your Forte apparently.

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

It mentions both not just one.

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

There was nothing in that excerpt about forcible transfers.


Your retort was like that of a clumsy amateur.

[Fozzledick]

29. Doubling down doesn't make it true

but it does prove my points, all three of them.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

31. "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its >>>own civilian population<<<

into the territory it occupies."

There's nothing to double down on. You failed.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

33. "too dumb to know it"

I can find 25 watt bulbs more illuminating that what yo have just written above.

But since I must light your way to reality...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.561435

Defense Minister approved 3,000 new West Bank homes in first four months of term
Despite Israel's declarations, construction was not limited only to settlement blocs; Barak approved 6,200 West Bank housing units during his last four months in office.

It's not voluntary, it's state sponsored. I feel embarrassed by your lack of honesty.

[Shaktimaan]

40. State assisted construction...

is still a far cry from "involuntary transfer" of citizens. Obviously the settlers are acting entirely voluntarily. Israel has never deported citizens to the settlements or otherwise forced them to move there in any way.

Additionally your quote specifies that Israel "approved" this construction. Not that they did it themselves. Likely the homes were constructed by private contractors at their own cost. Far from "forcing" citizens to the settlements, Israel merely "allows" them to do so.

Part of shira's argument doesn't apply. The Geneva conventions were officially made Customary International Law in 1993 making them binding to everyone, including non-signatories. So it doesn't matter that Palestine isn't a high party.

What does matter though is that the territory in question is disputed. As no sovereign power can claim sole rights to the area, we must consider the existing (albeit old), declaration that specifically granted Jews the right to settle there. I'm unaware if conflicting declarations have invalidated it. Without which the right for Jews to settle in the WB would still be protected.

From an ethical standpoint there's plenty of arguments to be made against the settlements, especially considering the policies and actions of the folks who tend to live there. Personally I oppose the settlements and would love to see them dismantled. They're impractical, antagonistic, expensive, and can't exist without also oppressing those Palestinians who live all around them.

That said, we're just discussing the legality here, not the thornier ethical aspects. Regardless, do you really think the article you quoted was intended to apply to situations like heron's or east jerusalem's? Both are areas with long histories of consistent Jewish habitation, and key cultural, historical and religious roles. They were ethnically cleansed of Jews for a few decades, (after thousands of years prior), which ended when they were first able to return, post-67.

For the GC to apply here would indicate that prior wrongs, (ethnic cleansing), can be validated after the fact by criminalizing attempts to reverse their effects.

If their presence is illegal then why not also the Palestinians living there as well? Most of them are refugees of Israel's nakba, who resettled and gained Jordanian citizenship. From a legal perspective what is the difference?

[shira]

46. I didn't know that...

Part of shira's argument doesn't apply. The Geneva conventions were officially made Customary International Law in 1993 making them binding to everyone, including non-signatories. So it doesn't matter that Palestine isn't a high party.

Seems that parts of Geneva have to be amended in light of that.

[shira]

49. Wait - maybe I'm not understanding. When Hamas or Hezbollah go to war vs. Israel....

...does Geneva apply equally to them? As I recall, there were major objections to the way Hezbollah and Hamas were handled at the UN due to not being high contracting powers. Same would apply to Fatah/PLO in conflict.

The point is Palestine couldn't have been considered a signatory to Geneva back in 1993, whether they wanted to be or not. There was no Palestine then just as there isn't one now.

[Shaktimaan]

52. Of course.

Basically the rules set by the 4th GC are considered Customary Intl Law now and are binding for all conflicts. I'm unsure about some of the problematic details, for instance, the original convention specifically excludes certain individuals from the right to claim "protected person" status. So are their enemies now still required to treat them according to GCIV protocols despite this? I don't know.

What I took away from it was basically that everyone involved in any kind of conflict is expected to conform to the rules set forth in GCIV regarding the treatment of civilians and other protected people. So yes, Hamas and Hezbollah are as well, although neither group has ever paid much attention to any of the laws of war anyway so there's no reason this will have any effect on their actions.

[shira]

15. Geneva's Forced deportations was meant to directly address evil like Germany....

Last edited Sun Mar 16, 2014, 07:21 AM - Edit history (7)

....deporting hundreds of 1000's of Jews, Gypsies, Gays, etc... to concentration camps against their will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer

The tide started to turn when the Charter of the Nuremberg Trials of German Nazi leaders declared forced deportation of civilian populations to be both a war crime and a crime against humanity.4 This opinion was progressively adopted and extended through the remainder of the century. Underlying the change was the trend to assign rights to individuals, thereby limiting the rights of states to make agreements which adversely affect them.

There is now little debate about the general legal status of involuntary population transfers: "Where population transfers used to be accepted as a means to settle ethnic conflict, today, forced population transfers are considered violations of international law."[5] No legal distinction is made between one-way and two-transfers, since the rights of each individual are regarded as independent of the experience of others.

Article 49 of Fourth Geneva Convention (adopted in 1949 and now part of customary international law) prohibits mass movement of people out of or into of occupied territory under belligerent military occupation:[6]

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Slightly different situation during WW2 than the voluntary choice that Israel's Jews and Arabs have made the last few decades, wouldn't you say? And yeah, there are many Israeli Arabs who have chosen to live in settlements with Jews. They're not being forced to go anywhere.

And being that there hasn't been a sovereign power in the W.Bank (Jordan didn't have recognized sovereignty there) it's difficult making the case that Israel is "occupying" that area. A region cannot be recognized as occupied, under the Geneva Convention, if it has no formal sovereign. Also, the UN mandated that Jews have a legal right to settle on those lands. This has never been overturned. You'd have a better case for Geneva 49 (forget the obvious Nazi justification for the law) if the W.Bank was sovereign Palestinian territory. But you don't. And no amount of twisted propaganda will help you.

Here's the relevant Article 2 from the Geneva Convention that you believe supports your case:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Ouch.

#GenevaFail for you, friend.

Israel is a sovereign high contracting party. There is no other sovereign, high contracting party in the W.Bank. Takes 2 to tango according to Geneva. Don't let the facts confuse you.

Back to the drawing board. Try again.

ps,
It wasn't only that Jordan illegally occupied the W.Bank prior to 1967. It's that all the Palestinians there became Jordanian citizens. Since there has never been a state of Palestine, there is no such thing as Palestinian citizens. The PLO even renounced all claims to the territory in their 1964 charter. So remember, Geneva calls for 2 or more sovereign powers in their definition of occupation. It cannot therefore apply to the settlement situation.

[azurnoir]

4. yes the US use it's veto in Israel's favor just as Russia has used it's veto

in Iran's favor that does not undo Geneva 4 and Israel is in violation of that no matter how yo spin it

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. I'm surprised that some wish to regurgitate the "There is no law" nonsense over and over

while Israel had signed Geneva 4 two years after its writing. One either has to be a complete and disingenuous person to beieve that their song and dance on this will do anything to further the Israeli side in all this.

Shira has been schooled in this how many times now? 4-5?

[azurnoir]

6. what the US actually did was to stand in the way of sanctions not legalize the settlements

as was claimed here, the US prefers the more PC term illegitimate to illegal

I take the above comment as an any port in a storm type thing

and it doesn't matter how many times it will be regurgitated anyway

[shira]

19. There would've been no need for the UN to vote on making settlements illegal...

...if it was clear they were illegal in the first place. The fact remains there is no International Law applying to the settlements that makes them illegal.

See post #15 and try responding specifically to that if you can - not that you will b/c you'll just go off on another tangent, deflect with some bullshit, and then regurgitate the same crap over and over again.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. Certainly there is, shira. The 4th Geneva convention is extremely clear on that.

Why do you keep on attempting to misdirect your way through this thread?

Article 49 - Population transfer [hide]

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

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

Article is painfully clear so that any hasbarist would not really attempt to embarrass themselves so, but please proceed, shira.

[shira]

34. You're ignoring Geneva Article 2 - b/w 2 high contracting (sovereign) powers

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

There was and is no other high contracting power other than Israel in the territories. Jordan didn't have sovereignty there and Palestinians never had it either.

Try again.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. And we have another Shira Fail. Did we expect less?

No, not really.

Article 49 still stands clearly and unequivocally. Israel does not have the right, under international law to move it's citizens into occupied territory. Keep on clutching at straws shira.

Article 49 - Population transfer [hide]

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

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

[shira]

43. So you just ignore Article 2, pretending it doesn't exist. Nice.

Last edited Mon Mar 17, 2014, 06:40 AM - Edit history (2)

If International Law were clear about settlements being illegal, there would have been no need for the failed 2011 UNSC bid to declare them illegal. They obviously were not illegal prior to that vote in 2011, nor are they illegal now.

Shall we pretend that vote never happened either?

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

That pertains to a situation like Nazi Germany, when they deported or forcibly transferred their Jews, for example, to camps outside of Germany and into occupied territory.

Settlers aren't being deported or transferred against their will.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. How many times does one get to post bold faced lies before I bring it to MIRT?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=59379

[azurnoir]

8. there are unfortunately no rules against doing that

and any poster over 100 posts is out of MIRT's reach

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. Actually...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Don't do anything else which is similarly disruptive.
Just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it's ok. If you post anything which is obviously disruptive, malicious, or repugnant to this community, its members, or its values, you risk being in violation of these Terms of Service.

One more thing: Don't push your luck.
The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.

I'm not sure, besides pure insults, that there could be anything more disruptive or malicious than a poster that purposefully misrepresents the truth or posts fabrications cut from whole cloth: especially when that poster knows full well that they are spreading misinformation.

[azurnoir]

10. unfortunately in the I/P situation what is considered the truth is apparently subjective

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. .

[azurnoir]

12. I know and I'm sorry

[Fozzledick]

14. Pure Machiavellianism.

Accuse your opponents of your own vices.

[shira]

16. Orwellian, isn't it? Looks like someone is looking for ANY excuse....

...to get someone else here banned. Now it's MIRT. Yesterday it was, "Did X enjoy their last vacation from DU? Looking forward to another?"

It goes on and on...

Isn't that harassment?

It's like Mean Girls part 8.

[King_David]

21. Exactly true in this case,

The very worst offender attempting to slur his opponents with his tactics.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

25. No. I have proven that some will lie with impunity.

I'm sure that your myopic view sees it differently.

[Fozzledick]

27. Not at all, I just agree that you are the worst offender.

The pot calling the kettle black.

And you do seem to have a personal vendetta to get another poster banned:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595196
which I consider the most disruptive thing you can do.

[King_David]

28. Yep.

I don't even engage anymore.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. .

to you or any disruptor.

[shira]

35. Hilarious. And yet pathetic. Thanks for the link. n/t

[King_David]

38. I don't engage,

At all.

[King_David]

20. Why is that question being asked I wonder ?

That's the real question.

[shira]

17. You tell me. Why is Art 7 on the Convention of the Rights of a Child a lie?

Last edited Sun Mar 16, 2014, 05:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the
right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as
possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm

You believe in right-of-return because of UNRWA's special definition of Palestinian refugees that applies to no other people on the planet other than Palestinians.

But see, that's the problem. It ain't much of a "law" if it's not applied equally to everyone. Only in the Palestinians' case do refugee population increase exponentially over time. Other refugee problems around the globe work themselves out due to genuine LAW like Article 7 on the Convention of the Rights of the Child. A real law that other nations actually follow. Israel even followed Article 7 when it took in thousands of Palestinian refugees who were once in camps within its green line shortly after 1948. As well as the 800,000 Jewish refugees flooding in during that time from the Arab world.

[shira]

18. See #15. Read it and weep. Geneva 49 doesn't apply in the case of settlements. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. Since you are unwilling to post to article 49 I will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

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

That snippit of the 4th Geneva convention pretty much destroys your unclean proclamation.

Another Shira Fail.

[shira]

36. The relevant parts to Geneva 49 are based on Geneva 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

How many times does it need to be repeated that military occupations under Geneva have to be between 2 high contracting (sovereign) powers? There's Israel vs. ___________? Palestinians have never had sovereignty there.

Hope I didn't just commit "apartheid" by stating Palestinians never had sovereignty in the WB.

[azurnoir]

41. what you've stated is that because the Palestinians are stateless Israel is free to do as it wishes

to them, making Palestinians at least according to you a lessor form of humanity, one to whom normal humanitarian rules do not apply

[shira]

44. I stated that Geneva 49 doesn't apply in the case of disputed non-sovereign land.

Deal with that.

[azurnoir]

47. but Geneva 49 does not give Israel the right to expell the existing population of that land

or transfer it's own citizens to 'settle' that land, and any claim that it dos leads us right back to my point

[shira]

50. Please provide an example and the specific part of Geneva that would apply. n/t

[azurnoir]

54. I already did you claimed that it did not apply to Palestinians

it's part of Geneva 4 not 49, so once again we're back to your dehumanizing Palestinians by claiming common conventions to protect civilian populations of militarily occupied areas do not apply to them

[azurnoir]

26. actually there is more than that

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

Israel has been evicting Palestinians from their homes in Area C and refusing to allow them so much as tent for shelter, during the winter months too

also Israel routinely transfers Palestinian prisoners from the West Bank to Israel (within the Greenline) making it difficult for their families to visit

[shira]

37. Again, Geneva Art. 2 proves u wrong. I've posted it 3X in this thread. Read it. n/t

[azurnoir]

42. That would be true except on November 29 2012 the UNGA recognized Palestine

otherwise you're claiming that because the Palestinians are in your mind stateless Israel can do to them as it wishes

[shira]

45. Oh? So now Palestine is a sovereign high-contracting country? n/t

[azurnoir]

48. Israel still does not have the right to expell the existing population or transfer it own citizens

to live in that land you claim it has the right to-any denial of that and we're right back to you claiming the Palestinians living in the West Bank are somehow a lessor form of humanity without rights

[Shaktimaan]

51. Right.

But Israel hasn't been. No ones been expelled from the opt. Nor has Israel transferred anyone in to the opt. It has allowed its citizens to move there of their own volition, which isn't prohibited in the conventions.

[azurnoir]

53. Israel transfers prisoners outside of the OPT regularly to prisons in Israel

it allows it's own citizens to move on to land not belonging to sovereign Israel and it has Palestinian evicted residents from their homes and refused t allow them even the temporary shelter of a tent

[Shaktimaan]

55. right

It allows it's citizens to move onto land in the OPT. It doesn't trasnfer them there though. Big difference. And your second statement is a little dishonest. It evicted Palestinians in a specific situation. Shelter for them was provided, it just denied them the right to remain in the area they were being evicted from. The tents are irrelevant. Regardless, there's a huge difference between evicting the occupants of a town and expelling people from their country, which is what the GC disallows. In fact, it specifically grants occupiers permission to evict residents from specific areas.

You're 100% right about the prisoner transfer thing though. That clearly violates the GC.

[azurnoir]

56. still and none the less allowing it's citizens to set up shop on land not part of sovereign Israel

and in fact allocating large sums to do that is really little different from transferring, that is a tired and IMO rather weak parsing just really doesn't fly

and exactly where did the Palestinians forced from their homes find shelter, was it provided by Israel?

you also fail to address the prisoner issue

[Shaktimaan]

57. actually

there's a world of difference between "transferring/deporting" and "allowing." The first is to prevent a state from forcibly expelling "undesirable" groups from a state by forcing them into the occupied territory of another. If emigrating to occupied territory was not allowed then it would have been specifically forbidden. There are detailed specifics that accompany the GC to illustrate exactly what the signers intentions were, so this issue is very clear cut.

and exactly where did the Palestinians forced from their homes find shelter, was it provided by Israel?

you're talking about the recent bedouin thing, right?

you also fail to address the prisoner issue

No, I didn't. I agreed with you about it, in fact.

[azurnoir]

62. in any of the issues I counted here there is no one incident but rather a repeated pattern

of behavior by IDF , so no it's not just a recent issue with Bedouins

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Here's the text of the resolution the US vetoed. It was reaffirming the illegality of settlements...

The Security Council,

Recalling its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other Arab territories occupied since 1967,

Reaffirming that all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of peace on the basis of the two-State solution,

Condemning the continuation of settlement activities by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Bearing in mind also the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Taking note of the strong support expressed by the Quartet for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for the resolution of all final status issues within one year,

Stressing the urgency of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace on the basis of the relevant resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap,

1. Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel, the occupying Power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

3. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law and their previous agreements and obligations, including under the Roadmap, aimed, inter alia, at improving the situation on the ground, building confidence and creating the conditions necessary for promoting the peace process;

4. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, with their negotiations on the final status issues in the Middle East peace process according to its agreed terms of reference and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;

5. Urges in this regard the intensification of international and regional diplomatic efforts to support and invigorate the peace process towards the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9397A59AD7BFA70B8525783F004F194A

The definition of reaffirm is to state again strongly.

[shira]

59. Thanks - can u point me to the exact International Law declaring settlements illegal? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

60. It's Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention...

I read through this thread and saw the arguments about it revolving around the words forcible, transfer and deportation. There's two reasons that it does apply to the Occupied Territories, and they are:

1. The UNSC, UNGA, the ICRC, the ICJ and the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have all affirmed that it does apply to the Occupied Territories.

2. It's the sixth paragraph of Article 49 where the dispute comes into it. The sixth paragraph says:

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

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/380-600056?OpenDocument

The commentary accompanying the Article explains that the words deport and transfer don't mean the same thing as in preceding paragraphs. Here's the commentary:

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.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600056

I was searching for a very old sub-thread from DU1 where one of the best discussions I've seen about the settlements happened, but had no luck. I do have a link to a post from Jack Rabbit, a former mod of the I/P forum way back years ago and contributed some great stuff. He talks about the issue of Israel allowing settlers to move and live there. He said it so much better than I could...

It would seem from this that the situation that the authors of the Convention wished to prohibit is one where an occupying allows parts of its own population to colonize the occupied territory or supplant the population of the occupied territory. While the word transfer in the other five paragraphs of Article 49 definately has a meaning of forced transfer, the meaning of transfer in paragraph 6 may be either voluntary or involuntary transfer.

The fact that Israel has not forced any individual settler to move to the territories is irrelevant to the legality of the settlements. The fact that the Government of Israel has done nothing to discourage the growth of these settlements, and in fact has promoted them and continues to promote them, is in fact what makes them illegal. Were these in fact settlers moving independently on their own without the GOI subsidizing their housing and if the settlers were providing their own infrastructure and security, rather than the Israeli taxpayer, the case for the legality of the settlements might be a better one. As it is, the settlements are illegal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=34470#34814

[shira]

61. Okay, thanks. I obviously disagree....

Last edited Tue Mar 18, 2014, 10:07 AM - Edit history (2)

...due to the Mandate for Palestine, which gives Jews legal right to settle anywhere in Palestine. This right was never revoked, and in fact it was preserved by Article 80 in the UN Charter.

Jews are indigenous/aboriginal to the land. They're not colonizers.

The question becomes HOW that right can be preserved. If this right is not preserved then it is a breech of International Law. If Israel isn't allowed to let them settle there, then another entity - by law - must allow for Jews to live there. The PA/PLO won't allow Jews to live in a future Palestine. Palestinian law still forbids the sale of land to Jews, as the death penalty can still be applied to any Palestinian who does.