The Unlawful Alteration of the Demographic Structure of the Occupied Palestinian Territories Under Coercion

Mahsa Dini

M.A. in International Relations, Allameh Tabataba’i University

In discussions surrounding Israeli settlement policy, existing frameworks of international law regard such actions as violations of the rights of peoples. Nevertheless, Israeli officials have largely disregarded international legal standards, instead relying on Israeli legal scholars and theorists who adopt a fundamentally different approach.

From a theoretical standpoint, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (which entered into force on January 27, 1980), international law prevails over national law in the event of a conflict. However, in practice, Israel has circumvented this principle by refusing to ratify the Vienna Convention. Consequently, two factors have allowed Israeli domestic law to dominate the regulation of resettlement:
First, a lack of enforcement mechanisms enables Israel to endure the political consequences of disregarding its behavioral obligations for as long as it chooses, without being compelled to respond to international criticism.
Second, decades of injustice and politicization surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—as reflected in the condemnations issued by the Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and others—have allowed Israeli officials to discredit all UN human rights mechanisms.

Understanding the divergence between Israel’s legal position and international legal norms regarding the status of the occupied territories is therefore of great significance. For instance, Israel argues that Jordan’s attack on its territory during the 1967 war resulted in Jordan’s loss of sovereignty over the West Bank, thereby creating a legal vacuum in the region. Based on this interpretation, Israel maintains that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable because:

1. It did not occupy the territory of a sovereign state;
2. There was no sovereign power to which the territory could be returned;
3. The establishment of Israeli settlements does not contravene the Convention’s provisions.

Moreover, Israel cites Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which limits the application of occupation law to armed conflicts between High Contracting Parties. It further argues that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not fall under the Convention’s definition of a “non-international armed conflict,” since the conflict occurs in a territory without statehood and not “within the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,” as stipulated by the Convention. Accordingly, Israel claims that the ongoing conflict cannot be classified as either international or non-international, and therefore, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention—which prohibits the transfer of the occupier’s population into occupied territory—is inapplicable to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The Position of International Law

International humanitarian law in this context emphasizes the expansion of legal protections in armed conflict, rather than simply conflict resolution. International treaties and the jurisprudence following the Geneva Conventions aim to extend the laws of war to cover armed conflicts involving both state and non-state actors. In this regard, the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions—particularly Protocol II—and the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) affirm this trend.

According to ICTY rulings, the core rules of the laws of war may apply to armed conflicts between states and non-state actors, provided such conflicts reach a certain threshold of intensity and organization. ICTY judges have emphasized that for humanitarian protections to be upheld, such conflicts must be treated under legal frameworks similar to those governing international armed conflicts.

Furthermore, given that the fundamental principles of the Fourth Geneva Convention—including the prohibition of population transfer into occupied territory (Article 49)—are widely recognized as customary international law, the question of whether the occupied territory belongs to a High Contracting Party becomes immaterial. From this perspective, even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is characterized as a non-international armed conflict occurring in a territory lacking recognized statehood, the prohibition on settlement construction in the West Bank remains applicable.

Regarding the notion of voluntary transfer, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court clearly contradicts Israel’s position. The Rome Statute, which governs war crimes, explicitly prohibits the “direct or indirect transfer of parts of the occupier’s civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Its drafters deliberately incorporated the terms “direct or indirect” to expand on the Geneva Convention’s language and reflect the prohibition of state-sponsored incentives for voluntary resettlement, such as financial subsidies, material inducements, or public justification. These indirect mechanisms have been part of Israeli policy since the Alon Plan of 1970, which aimed to annex much of the Jordan Valley. Therefore, in this regard, Israeli policies are in clear conflict with international law.

Foreign occupation thus constitutes a grave violation of the principles of international law as well as the goals and principles of the United Nations Charter. It also infringes upon the fundamental rights and freedoms of the population living under such occupation. Based on this reasoning, Israel’s occupation of Arab territories and its settlement activities specifically violate the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.

The United Nations has also acknowledged the consequences of Israel’s aggression against Arab populations in 1967, particularly concerning the security and well-being of those affected. In this regard, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 237 and the General Assembly passed Resolution 2252 (ES-V), both of which affirmed the UN’s role and jurisdiction in protecting the recognized rights of populations in territories occupied by Israel. The United Nations maintained this role during times of war and accordingly requested that Israel ensure the safety and welfare of civilians in areas where military operations were conducted. However, Israel’s foreign adventurism, especially its 1967 invasion of Arab territories, has led to its notorious reputation as a violator of human rights and international law. Consequently, Israel has disregarded the principles, rules, and post-Charter standards of the international community, persistently pursuing policies that have harmed the Arab population and deprived them of their basic rights and freedoms.

Human Rights Violations Resulting from Settlement Activities

In discussions about Israeli settlements, three major transformations in the lives of the local population can be observed—each representing a violation of human rights. In fact, the measures implemented to alter the demographic structure of the occupied territories are in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949. These violations include:

1. The expulsion of Arab populations to areas outside the occupied territories;
2. The internal displacement of populations within these territories;
3. The deprivation of property.

Regarding the first category—forced expulsions from the occupied territories—reports submitted by the Special Committee to the General Assembly and related UN bodies confirm that, in several regions such as the Golan Heights and the West Bank, entire village populations were forcibly removed by Israeli forces and denied the right of return. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also explicitly addressed the issue of population transfer in its 1971 annual report.

For the second category—internal displacement—two illustrative cases are cited:

1. The ICRC’s 1971 Annual Report (published in Geneva in 1972) referenced the case of a Bedouin tribe that was completely uprooted from its land. That year, the ICRC intervened on behalf of a group of 260 individuals who were forcibly relocated by Israeli authorities from their territory to the Bethlehem area. As a result, they were deprived of their land and livelihood. Although the outcome of the ICRC’s intervention has not yet been publicly reported, the reality remains that such displacement and forced relocation directly contravene the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
2. In the occupied Sinai region and the area of Beersheba, three days after residents were transferred and had legal ownership of their properties, the Israeli army demolished all homes and water reservoirs. As of February 24, 1972, displaced residents were permitted to return only under two conditions: (1) they would not spend the night there, and (2) they would not build any shelters.

The third category—property deprivation—is also addressed in the ICRC’s annual report (page 80), which noted that the Committee was closely monitoring the issue of confiscation and expropriation in the occupied territories. Nevertheless, at the end of 1970, Israel publicly stated that it was unwilling to engage in any discussions on the matter.

References

• Ballas, I. (2023). Territoriality and Status in Human Rights Litigation: The Case of Israel/Palestine. Social & Legal Studies, 32(4), 606–625.
• Cohen, E. R. (1985). Human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories, 1967–1982. Manchester University Press.
• Galchinsky, M. (2004). The Jewish settlements in the West Bank: International law and Israeli jurisprudence. Israel Studies, 9(3), 115–136.
• Meguid, A. E. A. (1973). Israeli Practices and Human Rights In Occupied Arab Territories. The International Lawyer, 279–288.
• (n.d.). 1973: Arab states attack Israeli forces. BBC. From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/6/newsid_2514000/2514317.stm