u/Andulism

This question has been asked a few days ago(3days ago or so), and hasn’t been addressed. I hope I’m not breaking the rules for addressing it here rn.

Anyway, the West Bank is under Israeli occupation, meaning Israel is required to apply military law, not civil law on Palestinians, as that is a violation of international law(I hope I’m not wrong).

However I’d love to note that Israel’s settler-expansion is illegal as it violates international humanitarian law: Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Covention. As it the state facilitates, supports, backs and protects settler expansion, which fulfills the definition of “transfer”. And no it doesn’t have to be forcible, it isn’t a legal pre-condition, meaning even if in ww2 deportation and transfer was forced, doesn’t mean it has to be forced for article 49(6) of the fourth Geneva convention to apply.

Hey there,

I ran my IWA through the IRR or Team Project and Presentation section, which is stupid.

And when I ran it via the IWA section it came out as 100 percent plagiarism, which is due to self plagiarism, is there any solution other than contacting both my AP teacher and AP coordinator ?

One of the most heated legal debates regarding this conflict is the legality of the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. So here's my take on it. According to Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

>The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

And Israel is often accused of doing of violating Article 49. Well, for the Geneva Convention to apply, the territory has to be under an Armed Conflict. In this case, the West Bank has been captured in the Six-day war, and since then Israel has been exercising effectivites or effective control over the West Bank with no legal title, and you can't acquire a legal title from occupying territory, as outlined by ICRC. Furthermore, major legal bodies (including the ICJ and ICC) reiterated this.

Check this post, I've wrote an analysis regarding the West Bank's legal status, check it out for more info.

Pro Israel proponents argue that Israel's actions aren't a breach, as they argue "transfer" only applies to forcible transfer deportations, similiar to those in World War 2. However, the text itself doesn't specify that force is required. International legal authorities, including the ICJ, interpret "transfer" more broadly, to cover situation where the occupying power organizes, facilitates or even encourages its civilians to settle in occupied territory, even if the individuals move voluntarily. According to b'tselem the Israeli government has provided financial incentives, tax breaks, housing support, building permits, and and administration system in the occupied West Bank to encourage settlement expansion in the West Bank. It has also built roads, hospitals, educational facilities and it maintain military protection to safeguard these settlements.

These actions go beyond civilians passively moving to these territories, it's state facilitated and organized movements, that fulfill the definition of "transfer", meaning that the settlements constitute a violation of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Sources:
Fourth Geneva Convention
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949
ICJ advisory opinion (2004):
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131
Btselem
https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200205_land_grab

The Oslo Accords are used by many pro Israeli proponents to push back against the applicability of occupation or the whether the settlements are a breach of international law.

In this piece, I'm attempting to address most of these arguments.

So let's start with the fact that the Oslo Accords (1 and 2) were never meant to be permanent. They were "interim agreements" , designed to last for a five year transitional period. The period officially ended on May 4, 1999. SO if the deadline passed almost 3 decades ago, why are they still being cited in "legal" arguments today?

Article XI.3 explicitly states that Area C is to be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction during the interim period, except for issues reserved for permanent status negotiations. It doesn't say that the transfer is conditional on the parties reaching an agreement. The existence of unresolved issues can't extend the authority indefinitely.

By May 1999, any continued settlement activity or Israeli military presence doesn't follow the Oslo framework, even if both parties still apply the framework, on paper it's different and that's what matters.

Sources:
https://imeu.org/resources/resources/explainer-the-oslo-accords/116

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131

https://preview.redd.it/tohijzwqynxg1.jpg?width=1207&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=51539dc0fe5215cbc2fa9f8e738770d2453abb85

I'm planning to do research and before I actually start, I'd like to hear it from people here. The research is on why is there such a gap between public support for Palestine in the Middle East and among muslim countries and the actual policies of governments, like why do they significantly differ? Tell us about your perspective, and what are the lenses you're looking through.