From: wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna)
Subject: Re: Israel and the Fourth Geneva Convention (was: Israeli Nazism?)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:08:27 GMT

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.  

The expulsions of Palestinians by Israel are illegal because they are
in violation of of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which state
that: ``Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of 
protected persons from occupied territory to the territory to the Occupying 
Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited,
regardless of their motive.''  Israeli settlements are in violation of 
another section of Article 49 which demands that ``the Occupying Power 
shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territory 
it occupies.''

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 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.

Moreover, as Yigal Arens pointed out a year ago, if people bothered to 
check the views of Israeli government's own legal advisors, not those 
of Israel's political spokespersons and AIPAC, one would find a clear
recognition of the applicability of the convention and of Israeli
violation thereof:

    ``It is my conclusion that civilian settlement in the administered
      territories violates an explicit directive of the Fourth Geneva
      Convention,'' wrote the Legal Advisor of the Israeli Foreign Minister,
      T. Mayron, in a memorandum to Prime Minister Eshkol, dated September
      14, 1967.''  (Source, article in Ha'aretz, March 16, 1990)

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.  Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza, deporting natives,
and moving in civilian settlers.   This is in balatant violation of the
Geneva Convention, and in that sense Israel is emulating some of the behavior
of the Nazis.  This is not to say that the Israelis are Nazis.  However,
the Israeli policy of expulsions and enforced settlement of occupied 
land, not to mention torture and killings of defenseless civilians, is 
comparable to the Nazi German policy in occupied land.  The method 
of implementing the policy may differ, but the attitude to land seems 
similar "we have the right to take this land, the people there now are
just in the way, and must be got rid of, somehow."  To try and say "the
Nazis were brutal, we are not" does not convince the international audience.

>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.

>	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?  Besides, do you also insist
that these laws be applicable to Jewish settlers also?  When was the
last time Israel expelled any Jew?  

Your questions are laregly academic; Israel rules the territory 
using repressive military decrees and draconian military measures.  
Undercover units are roaming the territories and despensing death.
Kids have been shot to death on the spot for spraying graffiti on 
walls or for throwing stones. 

The UN Commission on Human Rights has long characterized Israeli occupation
as ``a fundamental violation of the human rights of the civilian population 
of the occupied territories.''  The Commission found a number of Israel's
practices in the occupied territories to constitute *"war crimes"*.  These 
included physical and psychological torture of Palestinian detainees and 
their subjection to inhumane treatment; the imposement of collective 
punishment on towns, villages, and camps; the administrative detention 
of thousands of Palestinians; the expulsion of Palestinian citizens;
the confiscation of Palestinian property; and the raiding and demolition 
of Palestinian houses.

Waleed Muhanna
-=-
  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people
      to do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke