“Settling” constitutes a warcime according to international law and ICC statute. Even under US’ own military legislations’
Law resources below this article
Published on Jan 1, 2013by PressTVFollow @PressTV
The Israeli army has started to build a new wall near Syria in the Occupied Golan Height.
Tel Aviv says the barrier will start from the southern part of the Golan beside the Jordanian border up to the north of the Golan Heights.
Israeli officials claim the wall is aimed at protect the settlers in the Occupied Golan. But Syrians in the Occupied territories see the issue differently.
THE ISRAELI APARTHEIDWALL
Aug 12, 2012 | by occpal
- Berlin Kreuzberg, March 1972 vs Israeli Apartheid wall in Palestine | So children climb on the wall to see…
- Berlin vs Israeli Apartheid wall in Palestine | And your mother walks alone aside a concrete wall of hate …
- Berlin vs Israeli Apartheid wall in Palestine | Unarmed. While the armed cowards hide in the watchtowers
- Carrying the cross in a divided city under siege which is surrounded by walls. Left Berlin on the Right Jerusalem. Religion under siege too.
Israel’s West Bank Barrier has become the most visible manifestation of the Israeli military occupation and most pressing issue for Palestinians. Often misleadingly called a “fence”, the considerable structure snakes through the West Bank on Palestinian land, leaving Palestinians on the wrong side isolated from their land, extended families, and way of life.
One year on: The illegality of the Wall
One year ago on 9 July 2004, at the request of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Court made clear that the construction of the Wall and the settlements were illegal. The Advisory Opinion of the Court represents the most authoritative statement to date of the content and applicability of international law concerning Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. On July 10, 2005, the Israeli cabinet approved the construction of the Wall in Jerusalem and vowed the completion of the Wall by September 2005.
Case before the International Court of Justice
On 8 December 2003, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution (A/RES/ES-10/14) in which it requested the International Court of Justice to “urgently render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, in the occupied Palestinian territories, including in and around East Jerusalem, considering the rules and principles of international law. The Request for an Advisory Opinion was transmitted to the Court by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in a letter dated 8 December 2003 which was received in the Registry on 10 December 2003. The ICJ ruling against the Barrier was rendered on 9 July 2004.
Humanitarian Impact and Legal Implications
These documents and overviews provide analyses and assessments of the humanitarian impact of Israel’s Apartheid Wall and its legal consequences. Reports included assess impact on movement, education, health, refugees and legal consequences in terms of international humanitarian law.
Latest News from StopTheWall.org
The Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign’s mission is to Stop the Wall. The Campaign calls for: (1) the immediate cessation of the building of the Wall, (2) the dismantling of all parts of the Wall and its related zones already built, (3) the return of lands confiscated for the path of the Wall, and (4) the compensation of damages and lost income due to the destruction of land and property in addition to the restitution of land. This page offers the latest news posted on the StopTheWall.org website.
Israel’s West Bank Barrier has become the most visible manifestation of the Israeli military occupation and most pressing issue for Palestinians. Often misleadingly called a “security fence”, photographs, images and video show another picture.
More information at Stop the Wall
More about the Berlin Wall
“States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy.”
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.
It is a grave breach of Additional Protocol I.
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.
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.
This rule is included in the legislation of numerous States.
Official statements and reported practice also support the prohibition on transferring one’s own civilian population into occupied territory.
Attempts to alter the demographic composition of an occupied territory have been condemned by the UN Security Council.
In 1992, it called for the cessation of attempts to change the ethnic composition of the population, anywhere in the former Yugoslavia.
Similarly, the UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have condemned settlement practices.
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.
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”.
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.
 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, sixth paragraph (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 334).
 Additional Protocol I, Article 85(4)(a) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 335).
 ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(viii) (ibid., § 336).
 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).
 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).
 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).
 See, e.g., UN Security Council, Res. 446 , 452 and 476 (ibid., § 408), Res. 465 (ibid., § 409) and Res. 677 (ibid., § 410).
 UN Security Council, Res. 752 (ibid., § 411).
 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).
 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).
 24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Res. III (ibid., § 419).
 International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Case of the Major War Criminals, Judgement (ibid., § 421).