Actually I read your post and you actually ended up agreeing with me. You should go back and read it.
You said the Supreme Court is a political organization. I said it is arguably a legal one. Where is the agreement?
Anyway to the substance, moving into an area is a nice way to paint what their doing. Moving into an area can consist of bulldozing the homes of the residents and colonizing the land, which is clearly illegal.
Not when one party signed off the land to be under full of military and civil control of the other.
As far as forcible transfer vs transfer, the law itself makes the distinction.
Article 49(1) Geneva Convention
That's the first stanza of the law, it clearly uses the phrase forcible transfers.
The part Israel violating is the 9th part.
Article 49(9) Geneva Convention
So the legal distinction has clearly been made. If the law meant only forcible transfers, than they obviously would have specified it, because that's how laws work.
Not really.
The fact that it says
deport or transfer indicates that we are discussing the transfer of someone against someone's will.
The voluntary nature of the persons being transferred does not matter.
Nobody is being transferred if they are moving on their own. If I move from NY to NJ or from NY to Mexico, the government has not transferred me.
My analogy makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court is not filled with judges who already have their mind made up about the defendants and plaintiffs of each case. The UN, definitely is; as is anything regarding international politics.
It is illegal to rape and torture in war but according to what? The Geneva Convention. you can't say it's just clearly illegal when you're denying the illegality of these settlements.
I don't see the connection between torture and rape and settlements. Transferring people into settlements is illegal, allowing them to move into settlements is not.
And yes I meant the ICJ, thanks for the correction. However my point on that stands, I would like to see Israel take this to the ICJ or any neutral international body and avoid using the veil of "everyone hates us" to avoid this.
Well, first of all, the notion that the ICJ is neutral is laughable. A bunch of judges (some from Muslim states) got together to discuss Israel. That's not going to result in an impartial discussion by any stretch of the imagination.
Second, the ICJ never investigated the legality of Israeli settlements. They discussed the legality of the security fence. The idea that the ICJ investigated the legality of the settlements is a regular talking points of the pro-Palestine camp, but it is clearly not the case. What the ICJ did do, is blindly accept the UN's notion that the settlements are illegal, which brings me to my next point.
Third - the ICJ responds based on background information provided
from the UN in order to discuss particular situations. The background in of itself tends to be biased, especially in all cases regarding Israel as the UN continues to be the largest anti-Israel organization in the world.
Finally, even if the ICJ did investigate the legality of settlements, it was merely an advisory opinion, completely consultative in nature, and is not an official ruling.
for Israel, after all the international laws they have broken, and continue to break.
