Legalities, legitimization and the law


The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel and two residents of the Ulpana outpost on Sunday submitted a petition requesting the High Court to annul its earlier order to evacuate the Ulpana by July...The petition also asked the court to freeze any action that the military or law enforcement authorities might take to destroy or evacuate the structures pending a decision by the Jerusalem District Court...The petitioners claim that the earlier High Court decision violated natural justice principles and that the court had exceeded its jurisdiction, since the facts regarding ownership have not been fully litigated. 
Besides setting up a major judicial confrontation, perhaps as potent as the 1979 Elon Moreh case (in Hebrew) was just over three decades ago (some background here), it possibly may prod elements of rationality within the government to deal with Jewish rights in the area of the national home for the Jewish people that was to be reconstituted but despite administrative control, Israel has not as yet extended its sovereignty to it, except for Jerusalem.
That would seem to be sorely needed as we have learned that
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that any expropriation of Palestinian owned land to be developed by Jews in Judea and Samaria could lead to the transfer of the entire settlements matter to the International Court in The Hague. According to Ha’aretz, Weinstein told Netanyahu the Court in the Hague was liable to indict senior Israeli government officials for war crimes.
That would seem a peculiar position to assume. As my colleague DF wrote
How does the 4th Geneva convention apply to private purchases of land? Isn’t it just as likely that the “no Jews” policy of the PA be declared racist?
That is quite relevant to the Machpela House in Hebron, for sure. The Ulpana neighborhood could be more of a problem in that final purchase was never completed and there is a court case handling the matter.
Nevertheless, why should the spectre of “war crimes” be raised? What could Weinstein be contemplating?
Israeli law scholars, to Zionism’s shame, have been in the forefront to deny Jewish rights in the Land of Israel. But there is a plethora of opinion, see this list I collected, and the additional material here, which is solid and cogent.
If Israel’s law chiefs are fearful, how can we citizens expect protection?
From Eli Hertz:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the evacuation of Jews from a Hebron home based on erroneous legal advice. Netanyahu was told that:"According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, an occupier moving population into occupied land constitutes a war crime." 
It seems that Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein based the above conclusion on the inappropriate use of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states in Article 49, paragraph 6: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Israel, the only free and democratic state in the Middle East, never used "forcible transfers" or "deportation" of its own population into "occupied territories."
Article 49 seems thus simply not applicable.