Principles of International human rights about Israel

Undoubtedly, due to the conflict nature ongoing since the creation of the State of Israel and the occupation of Arab territories by them, numerous rules of humanitarian law (customary norms, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the Additional Protocols, 1977) are used for the current status and accordingly in short we can say that two sets of rules, which are not so distinct, consider benefit rights for the Palestinians and consider the obligations and duties for Israel: the first group, rules that regardless of any ongoing conflict are used generally on occupied lands, and the second group, the rules that govern armed conflict. The point here that must be emphasized is that fundamental normative changes in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law, particularly those cases in which reached " World obligations " provides that implementation of appropriate norms is as an initial task that basically has nothing to do with the legal status of the parties in conflict and parties of the conflict and fights have to oblige themselves to observe these norms, as much as they expect the other side, including the government, rebel or the sides of the civil war; principles that are evaluated legal in the context of a hostile takeover, and refers the rights of "occupation". In general, in the fourth Geneva Convention it is said that in addition to tasks of occupier in relation to providing welfare, hygienic and medical services, the occupier has limitations some of which are mentioned as follows:
Deliberate homicidal, inhuman torture or treatment, illegal transfer, illegal detention, deprivation of the right to regular and impartial trial; hostage taking, destruction or seizure of property without military necessity; prohibition of collective punishment, creating fear and intimidation, terrorism, theft and looting; forcibly transferring collectively or individually and moving protected people from occupied territories, the prohibition of transfer or moving parts of civilian population into the occupied territories and the destruction of private property, movable or immovable, or of public companies . In addition, governments have a duty to prosecute those who committed prohibited acts in Article 147 and to punish them. Additionally, one of the most important principles contained in the Fourth Convention is the prohibition of annexation of the territory by the occupying state that has repeatedly been violated by Israel. Of course, the Israelis have repeatedly rejected validity of the provisions of this Convention over the occupied territories to neglect commitments, but the response of various international institutions, especially the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations, leaves no doubt in validity of the rules.
There are pure prohibitions in international law in relation to occupying Palestinians' land by force and exiting native people and immigrating Jews to these territories. From the perspective of international law, occupying territory and sovereignty over it by force is not only illegal because of being prohibited, but specifically it is invalid and illegitimate based on the common law and under the terms of contract law, and other governments are also banned to recognize these accessions. In this regard we can point out the followings: the eleventh principle of treaty of non-aggression Rio de Janeiro in 1933, the eleventh principle of European Convention on Rights and Duties of States in 1933; Article 5 of the Charter of the Organization of American States 1948; Declaration 1938 Conference Pan American in "Lima" on non-recognition of the annexation of territories acquired by force; Resolution of friendly relations of 24 October 1970 within the framework of the principle of the prohibition of the use of force which says: "land of no government can target of occupation and annexation by the threat or use of force by another government "; Article 52 of the Vienna Convention law of treaties, according to which even the annexation of land based on treaty is invalid; and the resolution of invasion definition. In addition to the mentioned rules, varied international institutions also announced Israel's behavior about occupation of territories of Palestinians illegal and called for return of the past situation. Among some of these decisions we can mention resolutions 252 (1968) UN Security Council that "announced the annexation of territory by force invalid," and states: "All the executive and judicial acts of Israel, including expropriation of land and property, through which legal status of Jerusalem [al-Quds] is changed, is invalid and it cannot be changed "and it asks Israel to" immediately abolish all those measures and stop any activity of this kin "; intense reaction of security Council to announcement of Jerusalem as capital also should be mentioned here (Resolution 478) that not only knew the action as violation of international law, but it announced that the Israel's action has no effect on the applicability of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Territories. European Union Council of Ministers in 1996 and 1997 announced in their declarations, "the acquisition of territory by force unacceptable and therefore considered Israeli sovereignty over them illegitimate". Apart from of the rules governing the "occupation", Israel as a belligerent during armed conflict has some obligations and duties as follows. It should be noted that due to the secularization and the applicability of Joint article III of Convention of Geneva on all types of armed, domestic and international conflicts, as well as secularization of fundamental guarantees of Additional Protocols 1977 to the Convention, these obligations are actually caused by these documents:
1. The joint article III, in addition to necessity of human attitude towards those who did not attend war directly as well as those people who put their weapons on the ground or were unable to continue war due to some reasons, it counts four general cases including:
Prohibition of harm to the life or physical integrity, including killing with all its forms, wounding, cruel behavior, persecution, prohibition of hostage-taking, the prohibition of harm to the dignity of people and the prohibition of the death and condemning people without a competent and comprehensive court for guaranteeing judicial Nations civilized.
1. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions also contain provisions as follows:
Prohibition of any act of revenge against persons and protected objects (Article 20); the necessity of distinguishing between civilians and civilian objects on the one hand and military targets and militants on the other hand during the attack (Article 41); prohibition of the threat or use of violence that the main objective of them is disseminating terror among the civilian population (Article 51); prohibiting inseparable attacks, including bombarding the towns, villages and the outskirts of the attacks that violate the principle of proportionality; using non-military people as shields for the attacks against militants (Article 51); the need to respect the principle of proportionality even when military targets are expected to killing Or injure civilians or civilian objects if it is more than expected military results (Article 48); prohibition of attacks on cultural sites (monuments, works of art, places of worship) (Article 53); requirement to carry out necessary precautions when attacking and defending to deliver the least damage and harm to civilians(Articles 57 and 58); immunity of defenseless places against armed attacks (Article 59). In addition, violation of the rules of war [by the other side] should not be an excuse to deprive people from rights of prisoners of war.
2. Principles of second Protocol (as far as not being repeated in the last principles) are as follows:
Prohibition of collective punishments (based on the principle that each person is responsible for their acts and we cannot punish a group of people due to act of one or other people); prohibition of terrorist acts; looting ban, prohibition of the threat of committing any of the above points.
In addition, Protocol II repeated the ban on sentencing and execution without trial under the Geneva Conventions Common Article III, cites some judicial guarantees which must be observed when judicial proceedings and steps. In preparing the article, basically principles in second and forth Convention of Geneva 1949 –especially political and civil law- are emphasized that invading article 5 of it is not permissible even an emergency of threatening the life of a nation happened.
in addition, according to Article thirteen of this protocol, a direct attack on people and civilian communities is prohibited, as well as targeting the civilian population and acts of violence that have primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population. Under Article Fourteen bringing starvation to civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. Obviously in accordance with the provisions mentioned above, Israel's behavior with the Palestinians during the intifada and using heavy military facilities for destruction of towns and places of civilians and the destruction of homes along with creating fear and terror as well as assassination of civilian leaders of Palestine and collective punishments of civilians under the pretext of sheltering armed militants among them indicate the planned targets which are fundamentally in contrast with paradigm upon which the logical rules of humanitarian law are above them.

Humanitarian intervention
One of the most important developments in the post-Cold War era was the emergence of the concept of "humanitarian intervention" following the catastrophic events in some parts of the world. In the past, any United Nations peacekeeping operation, as well as the International Crusader International, during the internal armed conflict, was basically based on satisfaction or negotiation and agreement of the governments in question. However, under the authority of the Security Council in compulsory interference in other countries, in accordance with the seventh chapter of the Charter, and in response to the threat to international peace and security, this council issued several resolutions over the past several years, invoking military intervention to interfere in domestic affairs, countries have been particularly justified and advised in domestic armed conflicts: Resolution 688 (April 6, 1991) concerning the right to interfere in Iraqi internal affairs in order to carry out humanitarian actions and assist Kurds; Resolution 770 (August 13, 1992) on the use of military forces to ensure the operation of assistance to the people of Bosnia; Resolution 794 (Dec. 1992) on the use of force in Somalia to prevent further catastrophes, peace and stability, and rule of law, Resolution 808 (22 February 1993), on the establishment of an International Court of Justice to arrest and prosecute those who violate Geneva Conventions and human rights standards and violated the former Yugoslavia and committed human rights crimes. The most interesting point is the issuance of permission to intervene by the Security Council in Haiti in order to "restore democracy." The Security Council Resolution 940 (30 June 1994), while expressing its grave concern at the deterioration of the humanitarian situation, in particular the continuing increase in the systematic violations of the social freedoms of the Haitian regime and the suffering of the refugees, continues to call this situation a threat to international peace and security and, therefore, it commands the use of force to defend democracy and the right to determine the destiny of a nation and human rights, and to avoid the risk of international peace and security. From the perspective, the non-interference principle depends on the well-being of the people under the sovereignty of the states, and human rights issues are no longer issues that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of States. What is to be emphasized now is that Euphrates is required by the Security Council resolutions issued in the context of the fear of the US veto and the satisfaction of this government against the Zionist regime and it is needed that in the light of the past approach in the framework of maintaining international peace and security, urgent measures will be taken to protect and guarantee the basic rights of the Palestinians and to eliminate Israeli aggression.