The citizens move there of their own accord, which is permissible
In the sense of Article 49 -- "transfer" obviously means any form of actively supported migration (not the coerced transfer) of these peoples into the OT.
In fact, in this specific case, there exists a pre-occupation law that specifically allows for it.
Which "law"? Something from the time of the Mandate?
> In the sense of Article 49 -- "transfer" obviously means any form of actively supported migration (not the coerced transfer) of these peoples into the OT.
No, it does not. Read the entire Article, I've read it. It protects civilians, it does not hinder their freedom to move. And it was specifically written in response to German transfer of civilians to Poland, while not interfering with German willful movement into occupied France.
> Which "law"? Something from the time of the Mandate?
No, the Brits did not touch the complicated Ottoman property laws. The Ottomans passed a law that anyone - Muslim, Jew, Arab, Druze, or other - could settle the land and they would then rightfully own it. This was to increase the tax yield of the very barren area, and it was wildly successful.
It protects civilians in occupied territories. Not the supposed "rights" of persons from an Occupying country to settle into these territories under the protection of the Occupier's armed forces and civil administration (as is the current situation in the West Bank).
This is plainly obvious from the language of the GCIV; and it is the overwhelming consensus interpretation of legal scholars on in regard to this section.
In the sense of Article 49 -- "transfer" obviously means any form of actively supported migration (not the coerced transfer) of these peoples into the OT.
In fact, in this specific case, there exists a pre-occupation law that specifically allows for it.
Which "law"? Something from the time of the Mandate?