Settling: A warcrime by LAW but Israel places cornerstone for Jerusalem settlement

“Settling” constitutes a warcime according to international law and ICC statute. Even under US’ own military legislations’
Law resources below this article

[Sunday August 11, 2013] Israeli “Housing Minister”, Uri Ariel, and the Jerusalem City Council head, Nir Barkat, placed the cornerstone of a new settlement, meant for Haredi Jews, on Palestinian lands in Jabal Al-Mokabbir Palestinian town, south of occupied East Jerusalem.

A settler group, known as Emonah, will implement the new constructions. Parking lots for the new settlement have already been built nearly five years ago on three Dunams of land, but the settlement was not built due to legal procedures after the Palestinians filed appeals against the constructions, but an Israeli court ruled against the Palestinians and the Israel government Okayed the plan.
Mark Regev, spokesperson of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stated that the new “residential construction plan that was approved today [Sunday] around Jerusalem, and in settlement blocs in the West Bank, are constructions in areas that will always be under Israeli sovereignty under any peace agreement with the Palestinians”.
Resident Jamal Abu Sarhan, a Palestinian impacted by the construction, told the WAFA news agency that the City Council in Jerusalem closed the main road that leads to his home, and converted it into a pedestrian only pathway.
“I pay thousands of shekels in taxes to the Jerusalem City council, but I get no services, and now they surrounded me, and left me a small pathway that is less that 2 meters wide”, he said, “No cars, no ambulances, no fire trucks… can reach my place”.
He also said that he received an official notice informing him that Israel intends to confiscate a half Dunam (0.12 Acres) of land he owns in front of his home.
“This land is mine, I paid more than 150.000 NIS to fix it and make it good”, Sarhan added, “Now they are just going to take it away from as Israel wants to turn it into a public area for the settlement”.
Also, resident Ahmad Obeidy stated that he fears the new settlement would lead to conflicts between the settlers and the residents similar to what is happening in Nof Etzion settlement, built on Palestinian lands in Jabal Al-Mokabbir.
Lawyer Majed Hamdan told WAFA that he has been representing the residents in Israeli courts for several years now in an attempt to prevent the implementation of the new settlement plan, and that he managed to stop it for two years.
“But Emonah is supported by various international groups that fund illegal settlements in Palestine, they can pay legal fees, hire lawyers, lobby…”, Hamdan said, “The residents cannot do that, they got no money or power, they are just being displaced, losing their rights and lands”.
He further stated that the residents have legal ownership documents that were submitted to the court and the City Council.
“But Israel targets Arab neighborhood, villages and towns in Jerusalem, Hamdan added, “They want to change the geography and demography of occupied Jerusalem”.

LAW

“States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy.”

Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international armed conflicts.
International armed conflicts
The prohibition on deporting or transferring parts of a State’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies is set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention.[1]
It is a grave breach of Additional Protocol I.[2]
Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[3]
Many military manuals prohibit the deportation or transfer by a party to the conflict of parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.[4]
This rule is included in the legislation of numerous States.[5]
Official statements and reported practice also support the prohibition on transferring one’s own civilian population into occupied territory.[6]
Attempts to alter the demographic composition of an occupied territory have been condemned by the UN Security Council.[7]
In 1992, it called for the cessation of attempts to change the ethnic composition of the population, anywhere in the former Yugoslavia.[8]
Similarly, the UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have condemned settlement practices.[9]
According to the final report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, “the implantation of settlers” is unlawful and engages State responsibility and the criminal responsibility of individuals.[10]
In 1981, the 24th International Conference of the Red Cross reaffirmed that “settlements in occupied territory are incompatible with article 27 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.[11]
In the Case of the Major War Criminals in 1946, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found two of the accused guilty of attempting the “Germanization” of occupied territories.[12]

References
[1] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, sixth paragraph (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 334).
[2] Additional Protocol I, Article 85(4)(a) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 335).
[3] ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(viii) (ibid., § 336).
[4] See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 346–347), Australia (ibid., § 348), Canada (ibid., § 349), Croatia (ibid., § 350), Hungary (ibid., § 351), Italy (ibid., § 352), Netherlands (ibid., § 353), New Zealand (ibid., § 354), Spain (ibid., § 355), Sweden (ibid., § 357), Switzerland (ibid., § 357), United Kingdom (ibid., § 358) and United States (ibid., § 359).
[5] See, e.g., the legislation of Armenia (ibid., § 361), Australia (ibid., §§ 362–363), Azerbaijan (ibid., §§ 364–365), Bangladesh (ibid., § 366), Belarus (ibid., § 367), Belgium (ibid., § 368), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ibid., § 369), Canada (ibid., §§ 371–372), Congo (ibid., § 373), Cook Islands (ibid., § 374), Croatia (ibid., § 375), Cyprus (ibid., § 376), Czech Republic (ibid., § 377), Germany (ibid., § 379), Georgia (ibid., § 380), Ireland (ibid., § 381), Mali (ibid., § 384), Republic of Moldova (ibid., § 385), Netherlands (ibid., § 386), New Zealand (ibid., §§ 387–388), Niger (ibid., § 390), Norway (ibid., § 391), Slovakia (ibid., § 392), Slovenia (ibid., § 393), Spain (ibid., § 394), Tajikistan (ibid., § 395), United Kingdom (ibid., §§ 397–398), Yugoslavia (ibid., § 399) and Zimbabwe (ibid., § 400); see also the draft legislation of Argentina (ibid., § 360), Burundi (ibid., § 370), Jordan (ibid., § 382), Lebanon (ibid., § 383) and Trinidad and Tobago (ibid., § 396).
[6] See, e.g., the statements of Kuwait (ibid., § 405) and United States (ibid., §§ 406–407) and the reported practice of Egypt (ibid., § 402) and France (ibid., § 403).
[7] See, e.g., UN Security Council, Res. 446 , 452 and 476 (ibid., § 408), Res. 465 (ibid., § 409) and Res. 677 (ibid., § 410).
[8] UN Security Council, Res. 752 (ibid., § 411).
[9] See, e.g., UN General Assembly, Res. 36/147 C, 37/88 C, 38/79 D, 39/95 D and 40/161 D (ibid., § 412) and Res. 54/78 (ibid., § 405); UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/7 (ibid., § 413).
[10] UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Final report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements (ibid., § 415).
[11] 24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Res. III (ibid., § 419).
[12] International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Case of the Major War Criminals, Judgement (ibid., § 421).

Source: http://tinyurl.com/mmsmdch