Finally a crack in the wall and we see the light

Its funny when folks argue that Israel's settlements violate the Geneva Conventions, and also argue that the Occupation is illegal.

Israel's settlements can't violate the Geneva Conventions if their occupation doesn't qualify under Occupation as set forth by the Geneva Conventions.

 

Zionism has many flavours- all of them sour;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

It's worst variant is neo-Zionism;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Zionism

Your extremely narrow view appears merely as a platform from which to bawl ' antisemitism ' in place of reasoned debate.

- - - Updated - - -

Attempting to divorce jews from Judaism is not the tactic of a sensible debater.

 

let me guess: you think the Talmud is evil, right?

 

Transfer of populations is illegal therefore the squats are illegal. All of them. That's just one aspect. Territory cannot be gained by means of war. Any conveniently-occupied territory must be vacated. That's generally-speaking. There are specific requirements for Israel to withdraw from Palestine.
Your isolated and pro-occupation viewpoint is well-known and boring. Give it up.

 

Guess away without me, pal. I'm here to promote Palestinian freedom from oppression.

 

#1. Israel hasn't transfered anyone into the West Bank. People were offered affordable housing prices and they bought housing. That's not a population transfer.

#2. No Occupied territory shall be vacated until the two high contracting parties come to a final agreement as to the status of the occupied land. No agreement means no withdrawal.

#3. The UN has made it clear that Israel's withdrawal from Occupied Territories must be accompanied by peace treaties with all of its neighbors. You can't expect Israel to withdraw without guaruntees for their security.

 

All sorts of zionism are jewish, because zionism is jewish national movement.
"Christian zionism" is just political movement to support for zionism.
Learn don't put your failure on your opponent.

Can you yourself understand this set of words?

 

All claim to knowledge of the subject ends right there.

 

I guess you don't know what a population transfer is.

offering people low cost housing at low interest rates, and hoping folks jump onto the opportunity, isn't a population transfer.

 

Sure it is. It's just an aspect of population transfer which appeals to estate agents and their shysters.

 

Also, a population transfer is not voluntary. The govt. gives an order and the people are moved. This is according to the 4th Gen. Conv.

- - - Updated - - -

sorry bro, but according to the 4th Gen. Conv., population transfers are not voluntarily. They are forced to leave by the govt.

you lose.

 

We're not in competition. I'm providing you with correct information. Population transfer can be either IN or OUT. Israel is engaged in both.

Still, post the relevant text which you think supports your incorrect view and we'll analyse it.

 

Now you're ignoring international law.

According to international law, aka the 4th Geneva Conventions, population tranfers are forced movements of peoples. NOT VOLUNTARY movements.

 

Again, post your text.

 

From the 4th Geneva Conventions:

"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.

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


Israel's hasn't deported or transfered any Israelis to the West Bank. They were given opportunities to move, and they took advantage of those opportunities.



You know very well that this whol section is in response to the Nazi, Soviet, Czech, and Chinese practise of forcibly transfering whole segments of their population to other parts of the country or even out of the country, due to race, language, ethnicity, etc.

The Israeli settlers don't qualify under this.

 

The squatters are part of the Israeli population. Israel is the occupying power. Anybody entering Palestine, from wherever, has been transferred from A to B.
The semantics of the term ' transfer ' are not in dispute. Israel uses its squatters to displace Palestinians and to create what they like to term ' facts on the ground '. The squatters are State-supported , if any shred of an opposing argument remains. Israel even differentiates between ' legal ' and 'illegal ' squatters, transferred populations by any other name.

As for ' forcible transfer ' the Israelis are forcibly transferring Palestinians out of their homeland every single day. Both aspects are illegal and contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

 

people choosing to individually take advantage of low interest mortgages, doesn't count as a "forced population transfer".

you know very well what a population transfer is. its forced, just as the Geneva Conventions says so.

stop ignoring international law.

 

Palestinians and their supporters will FAIL if their legal argument against the settlements, is that they constitute a population transfer. The Geneva Conventions are very clear, that a population transfer to or from Occupied Territory is not a consensual one. Its a forced govt. action.

Just as Poland, the Nazis, the USSR, and Czechoslovakia did. Comparing the voluntary movement of Israelis into the West Bank, for forced expulsions by European states before and after WW2, is pretty silly and absurd.

and it will fail in court.


....a better and much more sound strategy, is to argue that all settlements built on confiscated private property are illegal, as the 4th GC clearly states that private land in Occupied Territory can only be confiscated for military purposes. A good 1/3 of all settlement land is confiscated Arab private property.

Also, the 4th GC states that any state land confiscated by the Occupying Power has to be used for the good of all residents, and not just the citizens of the Occupying Power. Building Israeli-only settlements on confiscated state land in Occupied land, violates the 4th GC.

 

No, you've got it into your head that ' transfer ' implies ' involuntary '. It doesn't .

That's now a blatant attempt at deception - or the text of the Geneva Conventions is taxing your grasp of the language.

 

it does, according to the 4th Geneva Conventions.

you can keep ignoring international law, but it looks silly.

 

Abandon your transparent effort to rewrite international law to suit your derelict argument.

 

I think you have a blind spot here. While it may not be forced on the Israeli's, it is forced on the Palestinians. They are forceably and against the law taking over their territory. I have never heard anyone of the UN saying anything else.

There is though as Moon has said, a lot of forced expulsions of Palestinian people as their land and resources are taken away by an occupying power which is against UN rules.

it seems a bit semantics. The land is Palestinians.

Why do you keep saying that Israeli citizens are allowed there. Building Israeli settlements on Palestinian occupied land violates the 4th Geneva convention.

I think you have a blind spot because you see it very tied with the expulsion of Jews. Surely if this is the line you are taking, the Palestinians can claim their land back in Israel proper which they were forced to leave and not allowed to return to.

 

its only "forced" if the people are forced by the govt. to move there. that's what "forced" means, in this context of the 4th GC.

Israel is allowed to built settlements on state land, but the settlements have to be open to both Israelis and Palestinians. That's what the 4th GC says.

- - - Updated - - -

I am directly sourcing and quoting the 4th GC. You're simply stomping your feet.

 

No, you're not. You are simply failing to spin its content.

 

what part of the words "forcible transfer" don't you understand?

these are legal documents. every word counts. its foolish of you to ignore very important language like this.