> Despite the international hatred of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, there is no international rule or law forbidding it.
This flies in the face of most of what I've heard/read on the subject. Israel is considered an occupying power (in WB and Gaza), and occupying powers in general aren't allowed to build settlements in occupied territories, no?
I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918. Isn't it considered Jordanian land, since they annexed it after 1948?
> Isn't it considered Jordanian land, since they annexed it after 1948?
The Jordanians occupied the land, and the annexation was recognized by only two States (Iraq, ruled by the Jordanian king's brother, and I forgot the other one). The Arabs now disregard that annexation, under fear that it would legitimize an Israeli annexation.
Everything in this conflict is a war of words and changing one's interpretation of past events to suit current goals.
I addressed that. The Israeli government did not and does not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. The citizens move there of their own accord, which is permissible. In fact, in this specific case, there exists a pre-occupation law that specifically allows for it.
We seem to be discussing this in parallel in two places.
Anybody interesting in this should look a bit further up in the thread for my response to the same comment by the same poster. I've continued the conversation only there.
Yes, just as fine and dandy as any other village in the world. The Ottomans specifically said "come, all peoples, come settle this land" and nobody has changed the law since (one mandate that didn't and two occupations that can not). All talk of "it's illegal" either do not mention any law being broken, or grossly misinterpret laws that are applied with the correct interpretation in other geographic places.
There is much noise me about the settlements, but after a year and a half of researching this I come up empty searching for any solid arguments against them.
> I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918.
I failed to address this in my previous reply.
The Israeli occupation can not change the laws of the West Bank. An occupation can pass temporary orders, which are usually limited to (and often renewed after) three years.
Neither could the Jordanian occupation changed the laws of the West Bank, for the same reason.
The British Mandate was allowed to changed laws, and they did change many laws. However Ottoman property laws are very, very complicated and they decided that there was no reason to mess with it. So during the British Mandate the Ottoman property laws remained.
So the land in question has been through a UN mandate and two occupations (one still ongoing), without the property laws being changed. Those Ottoman laws still stand.
> Indeed, it's not clear why the parent poster is talking about countries, when war crimes are crimes against people.
This is exactly the point that I am making. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva convention is intended to protect people from forced transfer - both the residents of the occupied territory and the citizens of the occupying power. It applies to states, to protect civilians. It does not apply to civilians, and it does not protect land nor political ambitions.
> Wait, you're saying that because Israel isn't moving citizens into the WB, and it's being done voluntarily, then that makes it legal?
Yes. That is both the letter of the law and the intent of the law. That was the specific case with the Germans for whom this law was introduced, and that is how it has been applied in other areas as well.
> How does incentivizing civilians financially to move there fit into this? How does protecting civilians via the military fit into this?
There is no financial incentive, other than far more general financial considerations such as the expense of living in e.g. Tel Aviv. But one could move to Dimina, Eilat, or Kiryat Shmona for the same reasons - there is nothing special about the West Bank financially. As for the military protecting civilians, does not every military protecting it's civilians? When I was serving, we would protect Arab civilians just like we would protect Jewish civilians. The Arab clan wars are seldom discussed, but are a far greater cause of casualties than the Arab-Israeli conflict excluding wars.
> Yes. That is both the letter of the law and the intent of the law. That was the specific case with the Germans for whom this law was introduced, and that is how it has been applied in other areas as well.
Do you know of a good place to read about this?
> There is no financial incentive, other than far more general financial considerations such as the expense of living in e.g. Tel Aviv
This seems false to me. I don't know many details, but it's pretty often discussed that there are different incentives. I can link you to a B'Tselem report about this, but I assume you dislike them as much as I do. So here's instead a CBS story about there being financial incentives to encourage settlers (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-govt-offers-incentives-...).
I'll quote a few relevant sentences (translated to English):
> For example, the government eased the rules for obtaining loans to purchase properties in the area. Additionally, it lowered the taxes on property purchases. Moreover, the government created incentives for entrepreneurs to build in the area.
> As for the military protecting civilians, does not every military protecting it's civilians?
Of course, but the specific accusation against settlers is that they go and build settlements, sometimes purposefully to disrupt Palestinian villages, and then the army has to go surround them and protect them, disrupting the villages more.
There have been numerous terrible incidents, since October 7th, of settlers using various forms of intimidation to drive out Palestinians, e.g. setting houses on fire, sometimes while being protected (but not stopped) by the IDF.
None of this addresses the resettlement or removal of existing people, which is plainly a violation of article 49.
Establishment of settlements is also at least tacitly, and in some cases explicitly, supported by the government, which undercuts the claim that this is citizens acting solely of their own accord.
> None of this addresses the resettlement or removal of existing people, which is plainly a violation of article 49.
Yes, you are correct. The people who already live on land are protected from displacement by an occupying power.
If you have specific incidents of displacement that you word like me to address, I'll do that. The recent Sheik Jarrah incident that made international headlines was a property dispute - in fact a terrific example if you want to discuss it as the Jordanian occupation displaced the Jewish family living there.
This flies in the face of most of what I've heard/read on the subject. Israel is considered an occupying power (in WB and Gaza), and occupying powers in general aren't allowed to build settlements in occupied territories, no?
I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918. Isn't it considered Jordanian land, since they annexed it after 1948?