Re “Israelis Say Obama Is Ignoring Old Understandings on Settlement ‘Freeze’ ” (news article, June 4):
Let us remember first that the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are occupied territories under international law and Security Council resolutions. Time and again, building settlements in occupied territories is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which blandly states that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
Neither the Geneva convention nor its commentaries recognize or use alternatively the natural growth or physical-extension qualifier to justify the transfer of parts of the occupying-power population into the occupied territories. This makes sense since two wrongs do not make a right.
Given the number of Israeli settlers now in the occupied territories, any weaseling to facilitate new settlements will only complicate the negotiations and undercut the fair resolution of the problem.
Hussein Mubarak
Consul General of Egypt
New York
and thanks to my Jordanian friend
Posts
1 comment:
As I read it, the Geneva convention implies that governments may not FORCIBLY transfer population to occupied territories. In Israel, individuals (not the government) are freely making a choice to move to areas that came under Israeli jurisdiction during a defensive war started by the other side.
Just on a plain-language basis, it seems to me that Jewish towns are perfectly legal.
This makes sense in a practical basis as otherwise there would be no 'downside' to an agressive war, if the attacking nation knew the other side could not use any land or natural resources gained in self-defense.
Post a Comment