From: bkatz@epas.utoronto.ca (Bernard Katz)
Subject: Re: Israel and the Fourth Geneva Convention (was: Israeli Nazism?)
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:50:00 GMT

In article <C000An.1Fx.1@cs.cmu.edu> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.220827.929@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes: 
>
> > In article <BzwuJ1.D4w.1@cs.cmu.edu> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> > >
> > >I agree that deportations without trial are outside of peacetime
> > >morality (we can argue whether Israel can legally 'declare war' on
> > >Hamas), I am not yet convinced with regards to their illegality. More
> > >precisely...
> > >
> > >We have been told by numerous media and diplomatic officials in the
> > >media that deportations are illegal under the Geneva convention
> > >(assume for the moment that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to
> > >the Territories.  
>
> > Fine.  You should know, however, that the world, including the US
> > Government, is virtually unanimous that Israel is blatantly and
> > repeatedly violating the Geneva Convention.  The UN Security
> > Council unanimously passed many resolution (most recently a couple
> > of weeks ago) in which it reaffirmed the ``the principle of the
> > inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war'', and in
> > which it affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention
> > of 1949 to ``all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since
> > 1967, including Jerusalem,'' and strongly condemned Israel's
> > violations of said coventions.
>
> Thank you for your extensive comments.  It seems as if the UN has
> recognized a certain amount of Palestinian sovereignty already (by
> using the 1949 Armistice Lines as defining the western border of
> Palestine). 

	I believe that it would be a mistake to draw this conclusion.
The Green Line, the armistice demarcartion line of 1949, does not
constitute the eastern boundary of Israel.  The armistice agreements
expressly declare that the armistice demarcations are not political
boundaries but may be modified when the parties move from armistice to
peace.  Ironically, this provsion was put into the agreements at the
insistence of the Arab states.  (It may be worth noting that the famous
Security Council Resolution 242 calls on the parties to establish "secure
and recognized" boundaries and provides that such boundaries need not be
the armistice demarcation lines.)

	It may also be worth pointing out that legally speaking, the
West Bank is an unallocated part of the British Mandate for Palestine and,
so, does not constitute territory of any sovereign state. Israel occupies
this area as the result of a defensive war, and the Security Council has
ruled that this can last until "a just and lasting peace" is concluded.
But in any case, it is a mistake to speak of Palestinian sovereignty
of any sort in that area.  This last point is also relevant to _legal_
question of the application of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention.  The
application of the Convention is restricted to acts of one contracting
party "carried out on the territory of another"; clearly, the West Bank
and Gaza do not constitute the territory of a signatory to the Geneva
Convention.  

>
>--
>Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
>School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
>Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
>5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 681 5739
>Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA

---
	Bernard Katz
	Department of Philosophy
	University of Toronto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast