Letter: Israel in violation of Geneva Convention
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Lionel Bloch's criticism of our 'legalistic strictures' (letters, 28 December) falls very wide of the mark. As a belligerent occupant of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel has a number of rights and duties under customary international law and under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
Under these provisions, Israel is entitled to take certain proportionate measures against civilians to protect its armed forces, including where absolutely necessary assigned residence or internment (within the occupied territories), but it is prohibited from deporting the Palestinian residents of those territories.
The International Committee of the Red Cross reflects the view of world legal opinion when it states that this prohibition, contained in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 'is absolute and allows of no exceptions'. Justice Bach, a dissenting Israeli Supreme Court judge, has admitted that Article 49 is 'perfectly clear': it applies 'not only to mass deportations but also to deportations of individuals, and the prohibition was meant to be sweeping and unlimited - 'regardless of their motive' '. Also, as another Israeli Supreme Court judge, Justice Cohn, has argued: 'The prohibition of deportation in Article 49 . . . reiterates a rule of customary international law.'
Therefore, there is no legal justification for the deportations, even if they are 'temporary' and 'of selective supporters of terrorist organisations'.
As for the current plight of the deportees, Lebanon has its own territorial integrity to protect: it is under no legal obligation to become Israel's dumping ground for Palestinians illegally removed from their homeland. Rather, they remain the legal responsibility of Israel, which must first ensure their wellbeing and, in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 799, their 'safe and immediate return to the occupied territories'.
Israel's co-signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention have a legal obligation to encourage Israel to respect the terms of that convention. As a first step in this direction, they should individually and collectively (eg, through the UN) remind Israel that all those who have participated in the removal of the deportees, and the wilful killings that have followed in recent days (including that of a 10-year-old girl), have committed grave breaches of the convention (ie, war crimes), placing them at risk of prosecution in any state that is party to the convention.
For example, our government should point out to Israel that anyone found guilty before a British court of committing the grave breach of unlawful deportation, contrary to Section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, faces a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment.
Yours faithfully,
DANIEL MACHOVER
STEPHEN CRAGG
PENNY MADDRELL
Lawyers for Palestinian
Human Rights
London, WC1
28 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments