September 22, 2017

Please follow & like us :)

Twitter
Facebook
RSS

The only people in the world without human rights protection are the Jews of Judea and Samaria

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-only-people-in-world-without-human.html

As I was researching my last post, I came upon a damning quote from the Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Volume 1:

This would seem to be obvious. Every human being has human rights, by definition, no matter where they live. Human rights law and the Geneva Conventions is dead-set against forcing people to move against their will (outside clear security necessity) and in most cases forcible transfer is considered a grave war crime.

But this section was not talking about Jewish settlers in their ancestral homelands. It was talking about Turkish settlers in Northern Cyprus.

In all the thousands of articles about Israeli settlements and international law, I cannot even once recall seeing a single word about the human rights of the settlers. The only mention I can find is B’Tselem – still insisting that they all be forcibly removed against international law – says they should be compensated as a matter of human rights. (I found another about how Israel’s Supreme Court has treated settlements.)

International law is as clear as can be – forcible population transfer is a crime, regardless of circumstances, again with the exception of compelling security concerns. Wikipedia summarizes it:

There is now little debate about the general legal status of involuntary population transfers: “Where population transfers used to be accepted as a means to settle ethnic conflict, today, forced population transfers are considered violations of international law.”[5] No legal distinction is made between one-way and two-way transfers since the rights of each individual are regarded as independent of the experience of others.
Article 49 of Fourth Geneva Convention (adopted in 1949 and now part of customary international law) prohibits mass movement of people out of or into of occupied territory under belligerent military occupation:[6]
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive…. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
An interim report of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (1993) says:[7]
Historical cases reflect a now-foregone belief that population transfer may serve as an option for resolving various types of conflict, within a country or between countries. The agreement of recognized States may provide one criterion for the authorization of the final terms of conflict resolution. However, the cardinal principle of “voluntariness” is seldom satisfied, regardless of the objective of the transfer. For the transfer to comply with human rights standards as developed, prospective transferees must have an option to remain in their homes if they prefer.
The same report warned of the difficulty of ensuring true voluntariness:
“some historical transfers did not call for forced or compulsory transfers, but included options for the affected populations. Nonetheless, the conditions attending the relevant treaties created strong moral, psychological and economic pressures to move.”
The final report of the Sub-Commission (1997)[8] invoked numerous legal conventions and treaties to support the position that population transfers contravene international law unless they have the consent of both the moved population and the host population. Moreover, that consent must be given free of direct or indirect negative pressure.
“Deportation or forcible transfer of population” is defined as a crime against humanity by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 7).[9] 

There are no exceptions listed in international law for the reasons a population is where it is.

While is is obvious  to legal scholars that dismantling entire communities and forcing the population to move elsewhere is a serious violation of international human rights law, the only people on the planet that no one cares about in this context just so happen to all be Jewish. Every one of them. (Arabs who moved cross the Green Line, and there are thousands of them, are not considered “settlers” and therefore, have human rights.)

No one is saying to dismantle settlements in Crimea  or Western Sahara or Northern Cyprus and force the civilians there to move. And this includes scores of legal scholars who have not said a word against the widespread assumption that Jewish settlers must be forcibly transferred.

This is more than just bias. This is the culmination of decades of anti-Israel propaganda that has affected international law itself and how legal scholars think. The hypocrisy and the double standards literally could not be any more clear. Arab and socialist propaganda combined with biased “human rights” groups and supposed “impartial” bodies like the UN and the ICRC have cumulatively decided that some 800,000 Jews simply are not protected by international humanitarian law the way every single other person on Earth is.

It is literally a worldwide antisemitic conspiracy.

The scandal is that this is not considered a scandal.



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*