Geneva Convention IV was written in the aftermath of WWII, and article 49 aims at exactly what is happening in the occupied territories – the inherent injustice that stems from having two populations (be it Israeli and Palestinian, Japanese and Chinese or, heaven forbid we make the comparison, German and Polish) that are subject to two different sets of laws.

One other thing before we “kill all the lawyers”, it would be prudent to remember that law, especially international law, is a legitimizing tool used to back up propositions. It should not trump logic, or morality or any other justification for making an argument (as long as we are not in court), and there is no need throw out the entire discipline when it is used to make bad arguments. After all, we are not all sophists…

The world – or I for that matter – didn’t question the abstract Jewish “right” to live in Hebron or East Jerusalem, just the fact that while doing so, we want to keep the P under occupation and with no rights. So the “square” exists only in the Israeli eyes.

Again, the Israeli wish to keep the land and not the people – so they wouldn’t hurt the Jewish super-majority in the state – has nothing to do with the nature of Islam. Even if it were North-America style Zionist-Evangelistic Christians we wouldn’t give them full rights, for the same reason.

(I say “abstract” right to live in Hebron, because there is a difference between the idea and the practical implementation of this right, just as nobody would argue Jews don’t have the right to live in NY, yet if I try to use this right, I will probably get deported).

Cynthia – I don’t know the Turkish case that well, but the way you presented it, it does imply towards the “traditional” interpretation of article 49 – which goes to further prove that Israel is wrong in thinking that this interpretation is used only when it comes to us.

But there is one important thing to consider, which has to do with my answer to Jeff. In Turkey, as in China and Tibet, Kosovo, and in fact all other cases the could be mentioned here, the occupying force gave the occupied population full citizen statues, equal to its own population. the basic problem which make the Israeli occupation unique, is that Israelis are not ready to give the Palestinians any rights. Not within Israel, and not on their own independent state.

While I too was confused by Noam’s discussion about “authorised” and “unauthorised” settlements, I believe that Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention is far more likely to mean what it appears to mean – a prohibition against moving a population INTO occupied territory, than something quite different – ie a measure to prevent populations being forced OUT of an area (even if the latter goal is one of its wellsprings).

I wonder if Cyprus offers further insights about this? From 1974 Cyprus has been divided into 2 political entities – the southern “Republic of Turkey” , recognised by all the world, and the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” – recognised only by Turkey. This “TRNC” is effectively under Turkish occupation. It is my understanding that from 1974 on, and particularly during the campaign in Turkey’s west to destroy the PKK and/or Kurdish nationalism generally, and which resulted in mass homelessness, that Kurds especially were encouraged to move into the “TRNC” – in the hope of alleviating 2 of Turkey’s problems at once.

BUT in recent years Turkey has been keen to join the EU, but I believe that one of the stumbling blocks to this happening has been the breach of Article 49 entailed by the movement of Turks (be they Kurds or not) into the TRNC – to the extent that in 2006 laws were passed by the TRNC to impede this influx.

If so, this is an example which supports Noam’s interpretation.

I don’t know how to square the circle composed of the Jewish right to live in the ancestral home and the Arab right to a responsive polity; but your answer seems to be that the Jews have no such right.

I have heard that older Arabs living in the West Bank came to look with nostalgia at the early years of Israeli rule.

I doubt the issue will be solved without a great deal of bloodshed. I’d prefer any bloodshed to be of those of the enemy, they whose tradition makes the Jewish presence an intractable problem rather than a creative and workable situation.

Am happy to note that the oceans will evaporate in 2 billion years.

A. The “unauthorized” settlements were built on land that the government cleared for settling in advanced (it is very telling that there are almost no settlements on “unauthorized” land); than the government provided the settlements with services such water, electricity and protection – not just by the IDF, since the settlers in charge of security in the settlements are also being paid by the government – so I don’t subscribe to the notion that this is something that was done against the will of Israel. Just now, with his insistence not to “freeze” the settlement, Netanyahu reveled again that Israel’s policy is to settle the WB with Jews. It’s not even a secret anymore.

B. Unlike Prof. Phillips, I don’t know what the initial “purpose” of article 49 was. I know it forbids the occupying force to transfer its own population into the occupied land – because it specifically says so. And on face level at least, this is exactly what Israel has been doing.

C. Regarding the Golan, we weren’t talking national security here, but legal claim. I think we can agree that Prof. Phillips is simply wrong in stating Israel has, in any way, respected the Syrian claim to the land.

D. I wrote here about the Swiss decision a week ago. Regardless of my opinion on the decision itself, I don’t think it presents a valid example for the Israeli case. The main problem with the occupation – and you don’t have to be a legal expert to get that – is that the Palestinians have no citizenship, or any rights for that matter. This is the issue that needs to be addressed (unless, of course, you thing Muslims deserves no rights).

No one said that the settlers settled only on locations authorized by the state. The article says that some settlements were pre-authorized and some were not, and in the latter case, the government relented after a time. So… am sorry, this part of your analysis lost me.

Also, isn’t the purpose of the “population transfer” stipulations of the 4th Geneva Convention to prevent a conqueror from forcibly removing unwanted persons from conquered territory? The ethnic cleansing that you seek would be the forcible removing of Jews from the areas that are historically theirs, and to which they migrated voluntarily. The smiles of government officials do not take away the smiles–and heroism–of the settlers. This part of your analysis seems to deny the intent of the conventions.

Like you, I was confused by the original article’s reference to the Golan. It is hard to believe that Israel will give up every inch there. Must they, Noam? Will they be safer if they return to the ‘67 lines, under the benevolent gaze of the “international community”?

It may be that some aspects of the Israeli future are tied to events in Europe. The recent Swiss decision suggests a hardening of European attitudes, including by leftists or, at least, feminists.

Matt Eckel and I had a limited conversation about this, and about an aspect of life that you and he deny is central to a conversation about Israel or Europe: the nature of Islam.

Perhaps he never answered because he was busy or because he thought my notes were beneath him. Or perhaps he’s re-considering; and maybe you’ll do the same:

http://fpwatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/identity-matters-swiss-minarets.html