From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Israel and the Fourth Geneva Convention (was: Israeli Nazism?)
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<BzwuJ1.D4w.1@cs.cmu.edu>
	<1992Dec28.220827.929@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:01:34 GMT

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 have a few more questions and comments:


			[..]

   Israel's unwillingness to comply with the most solemn and binding
   resolutions of the international community and to uphold a body of
   international law, which it has signed and ratified, raises serious
   questions for the current peace process, principally whether
   Israel, if its current policies continue, can be a partner in good
   faith to an internationally sponsored agreement.  Further, the
   expulsions once again expose Israel/zionism for what it is: a
   settler-colonialist state/ideology under which the native
   Palestinians are, by definition, foreigners in their own homeland,
   a problem for disposal.

I am trying to keep to keep this thread as apolitical as possible (my
intent was to explore the bounds of international law in general and
the Geneva Conventions in particular), so I would appreciate it if you
would refrain (in your replies) from including your personal
impressions about the goals of Zionism and other nationalisms.


   >>I am fully aware that Israel does not recognize
   >>this, using the fact that the territories are not part of a
   >>recognized sovereign country.)

   This view is rejected by virtually everyone in the international
   community.  According to Article I of the convention, it applies 
   "in all circumstances," and according to Article 2, it applies to
   "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict."

   The Geneva convention is the quintessential humanitarian law.
   Unlike most other bodies of international law, the Convention 
   is designed to protect the rights of individual citizens, not the 
   rights of states.   Its preamble states that it is intended
   "for the protection of civilians".  It would therefore be against 
   both the spirit and the letter of the Convention to restrict its 
   applicability only to individuals who reside in territory that is 
   legally part of a recognized state.

OK.  But if the Convention does not specify a judicial process, it
seems to me that its humanitarian goals are restricted.  For instance,
would the Israel occupation authority be obliged to continue to
inflict capital punishment for crimes under Jordanian criminal law?

			[..]

   The Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory, was
   established after WWII to outlaw Nazi-like behavior during the Nazi
   occupation of Europe.  The Nazis would conquer land, deport natives
   and settle Germans in occupied countries.

Not to mention the 3 million Germans (deriving from 11th and 12th
century settlements) that were deported from Bohemia by
Czechoslovakia, and the Germans transfered out of East Prussia by
Poland and the USSR following WWII.  (In fact, it is those population
transfers that come to my mind when I think about the 1949
Convention's prohibition of mass transfer.)

			[..]

   >As I understand the Geneva Convention, the occupying country is
   >obligated to follow a few basic rules, including:
   >
   >	1) no forced, mass deportations of occupied population,

   Individual, not just "mass", expulsions are illegal under the Convetions.

   >	2) no forced migrations of its own citizenry INTO 
   >	   occupied territory,

   The Geneva document makes no distinction between voluntary and
   compulsory ("forced" as you put it) population transfer into the
   occupied territory.  To suggest that voluntary population movement
   is OK because it is not expressly prohibited by the Geneva
   conventions, is as ludicrous as suggesting that murder by ice pick
   is OK because there is no law expressly against it.

I don't like your analogy, but I accept your perspective on the
Convention's meaning of transfer.

   >	3) maintenance of the status quo wrt. laws and regulations,
   >	4) policing the occupied territory
   >
   >
   >At this time I ask:
   >
   >1) Are western-style trials mandated under the (4th) Geneva
   >   Convention?  (And if so, is this because Israel-proper has a
   >   western-style justice system or because the Convention explicitly
   >   defines a specific judicial procedure?)

   I'll have to check this, but I don't think the Convention EXPLICITLY defines
   a specific judicial procedure.

   >
   >2) What level of punishments can Israel, as an occupying power under
   >   the Geneva Convention, inflict?  Can it invoke the death penalty,
   >   group punishment, etc., citing its legality under British Mandate
   >   and Ottoman (as well as possibly 1948 Jordanian and Egyptian) law?

   What Ottoman laws are you talking about?    

The Ottoman laws that were inherited by Israel and by Jordan via the
British Mandate.  I am not in a position to quote any specific laws,
but I have been led to believe that both Israel and Jordan
inherited/incorporated certain laws and regulations from the Ottoman
and British days.  I believe that property ownership is at least
partly in that realm.

   Besides, do you also insist that these laws be applicable to Jewish
   settlers also?

As for applicability to Israelis in the territories, I think you have
probably just convinced me of the logic of keeping non-"protected
persons" out of the territories.  Having two sets of populations under
different laws (pretty much a requirement given that the protected
population is subject to the provisions of the Convention).

    When was the last time Israel expelled any Jew?

I'm afraid I don't know of any examples.  It would probably be illegal
to expel a Jewish citizen of Israel from Israel, but presumably legal
to keep particular people from entering the territories.

				[..]


--
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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:24108 talk.politics.soviet:10002 soc.culture.greek:11884 soc.culture.europe:10812 soc.history:10390 soc.rights.human:4672