Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
The original language of Article 49(6) in the Conventions says, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." This was written as a result of Nazi German forcibly transferring parts of its population to territory, and displacing the existing residents there, to assert control.
This article has been widened and widened consistently all because of Israel, in various international instruments. And now the ICRC is finishing the job, saying in its new commentary,
it is irrelevant whether parts of the Occupying Power’s population have been compelled to settle in the occupied territory or whether they have done so voluntarily but with the support and/or encouragement of the Occupying Power.... The very concept of transfer suggests that there must be some involvement of the Occupying Power, to which the prohibition is addressed (‘The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer’ (emphasis added)). Such involvement may take a variety of forms, both direct and indirect. Indirect support or encouragement may include building roads leading to settlements, providing military security for settlements, supplying electricity or offering tax incentives relative to nationals living in the Occupying Power’s own territory.
So, according to these oh-so-legal writers, Israel would be violating international law by trying to protect its own citizens - the number one priority of every state on the planet. (They can try to thread the needle by saying protecting civilians is also part of Geneva, but exactly how to do so when the presence of soldiers or police is considered illegal is a bit muddled.)
And:
Conversely, the wording of the provision (‘transfer’) does not allow mere inaction – even if benevolent and acquiescent – to qualify as a violation of Article 49(6). However, depending on the circumstances, such inaction may constitute a violation of Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, which obliges the Occupying Power ‘to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and civil life’. If, for instance, under the prevailing circumstances, the voluntary relocation of the Occupying Power’s own population amounts to a threat to public order and civil life, the Occupying Power would be obliged to prevent such movements.
Who decides whether the Jews - nearly all of whom live in remote areas far away from Palestinians - are a threat to public order and civil life? The Palestinians, of course.
Notice that under this definition, Turkey is unquestionably violating 49(1) and 49(6). It has encouraged Turks to settle in Northern Cyprus and it has seemingly forcibly transferred Syrian refugees into Kurdish areas in northern Syria.
Yet there is no language here that seems to have been written for Turkey, or any of the other long term occupations in the world. Practically no one protests against Turkey's violations. All the respect for international law seems to disappear when Israel isn't twisted to become the violator.
This is not international law, but it is heavily influential within IHL. It is just one more of an endless effort over decades by Israel's enemies to weaponize the law against the Jewish state - and changing the law when they can.
(h/t Irene)
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy
