“Settling” constitutes a warcime according to international law and ICC statute. Even under US’ own military legislations’
Law resources below this article
JERUSALEM (Ma’an) — An Israeli magistrate’s court has ruled to evict a Palestinian family from their home in East Jerusalem, after a six year legal battle to prove ownership of the property.
The court decision ruled that the house is absentee property and ordered the Siam family to leave the premises by the end of July, Nathira Siam told Ma’an.
The family was also ordered to pay 40,000 shekels ($11,200) as a rent supplement and 20,000 shekels ($5,600) to the court, Siam said.
Nathira said that the family have lived in the property since the 1960s.
“I’ve been renting the property from a woman called Sabriye Taha who has the rental contract and have been paying her regularly. When she passed away, Israel changed the ownership of the house to absentee property.
“The Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property ordered us to renew the contract and pay an extra amount of money, but our lawyer told us that I was a protected client and the Custodian of Absentee Property does not have the right to raise the fees,” she said.
The house is 60 square meters and has two rooms where the family of eight live.
“I will not leave the house, it has all our memories and I will not allow for a settler to take it and live in our home. I always get harassed by settlers to provoke me to leave it, but I will not leave it for them,” she said.
The Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah is a front-line in the battle to evict Palestinian families to make way for Israeli settlers.
According to the UN, 33 percent of all Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem lack Israeli-issued building permits, potentially placing at least 93,100 residents at risk of displacement.
Figures from Israeli NGO Bimkom show that 95 percent of Palestinian applications for a building permit are rejected.
Since 1967, the Israeli authorities have demolished some 2,000 houses in East Jerusalem. Over 1,630 Palestinians were made homeless in house demolitions carried out by Israel between 2004-2012, B’Tselem says.
Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordanian control in a 1967 war and later annexed it, a move never recognized internationally.
Homes owned by Jews before the 1948 war to establish Israel were reverted to their original owners by Israeli law after 1967.
Palestinian-owned homes lost in 1948 were not restored.
“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).