[SJackson]

The "forced transfer" argument is the one I hear most often and the one with the least behind it. Not only does the word "forced" appear nowhere in Article 49, but the text says "deport or transfer". A forced transfer would be a deportation.

That is not true.

Article 49 reads.

…………………………………………..

Article 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 do 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.

…………………………………………..

Forcible is the fourth word. Though not particularly important, a forced transfer is not a deportation, the first clause differentiates them.

Israel and a large number of legal scholars state that the bold face defines the entire article. Others would argue that since it’s not in the last paragraph, it doesn’t apply. It’s clearly a subtle enough argument that positions can be taken on a political rather than legal basis. Which is ultimately the realm it will be resolved in.

The fact that these are essentially unclaimed territories (which given the continued refusal of the Palestinians to conform to accepted norms of conduct could well become a part of Israel) is a far better proof of the legality of the settlements.

[E Rocc]

So that's the logic. That's the first time I've ever seen it presented clearly. I usually get a stream of vitriol when I bring it up. Thanks.

Now....this logic reminds me of the gun grabbers stating that the mention of the militia in the First Amendment clearly modifies the entire document, despite the fact that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" clearly stands on its own.

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.

:snip:

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

In the first place, the first paragraph feels the need to specify that "forcible" transfers are forbidden, meaning that not all transfers are forcible. The final paragraph, which not only stands on its own but refers to the precise opposite activity as the first, merely says "transfers".

There was a meeting of the Geneva Convention signatories in 1999. Only Israel and the US did not attend. The vote on the interpretation of Article 49 was unanimous: it applies to the settlements. The Mitchell Report also stated that opinion, and Bush re-endorsed it yesterday. So in effect, all the nations of the Convention interpret Article 49 in that manner, except Israel.

-Eric